You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
TJ, how much money do you reckon gets wasted on free prescriptions? I’m all for free prescriptions for seriously poorly folk but a load of people take the mick, paracetamol on prescription for example…its 50p for a pack! Need moisturiser for your newborn? Get it on prescription. Would be curious to find out how much it costs the NHS.
I’m sure the information on the cost of NHS prescriptions before and after the free prescriptions will be in the public domain (the very poorest were eligible to free prescriptions before if they were also smart enough to jump through the paperwork hoops - often the poorest are least able to do so). What is much harder is quantifying the indirect benefits of free prescriptions. Yes it means a middle class mummy can get skin moisturiser for her new born, but it also means not just the very poorest can but the struggling low paid. Is that stops a baby getting cracked skin and that cracked skin getting infected and that baby ending up on IV antibiotics or a mother who is on in work benefits (and so is skint, but probably wouldn’t qualify for free prescription in England) gets a better nights sleep because her baby’s skin is looked after, and so places less demand on post natal mental health services, or social work that is a good thing. It also means that people with chronic conditions get free prescriptions- before some conditions qualified and others did not, type 1 diabetic - you got everything free; “ordinary” asthmatic - you didn’t even get your inhaler free (but children would).
now if you are popping enough paracetemol to be a burden on the system* you probably need to see a healthcare professional about the underlying cause. A Dr or Pharmacist is more likely to help solve the underlying issue (or at least make sure you understand proper dosing and avoid accidental paracetemol toxicity - costing nhs many thousands) than the Tesco counter staff.
* there may still be anomalies in the price paid for dispensing a free prescription for paracetamol compared to the cost of the tablets - that is not a flaw if free prescriptions it’s a flaw of how we manage prescription dispensing. But keep in mind that those ridiculous profits make it worthwhile keeping local pharmacies open when other shops on the high street are in mass decline!
Benz
If you want some already enacted p9olicies that make folkslives better there are a few
Free prescriptions
End to bridge tolls
End to hospital parking charges where they are able to do so
Free University education
bedroom tax alleviation
Bringing assessment for illhealth benefits back in house and thus reducing the number of spurious refusals
bettter ( what little they can do) protection for refugees
land reform act including facilitating and financing community buyouts
Just a few off the top of my head
Very true, and interestingly all done while being part of the UK.
Yes, because nothing has changed since 1706/07
That’s as shallow an argument as American’s using the “right to bear arms” to justify their gun obsession despite the fact that was from a time when muskets were cutting edge technology
Not a bad analogy. Both democratic systems have a way to change the rules. In the case of the US, "All" you need to do is get the required number of states to support the amendment and you could have a 28th amendment that revokes or ammends the 2nd amendment. Similarly, Westminster can (and did in 2014) make decisions that could lead to the repeal of the 1706/07 acts) but you have to convince enough people at Westminster that it's the right thing to do. Both are democratic processes for changing the rules. Neither are trivial by design - but both do have a democratic process to achieve them, people suggesting there is not are just unhappy because their vote is not the one winning in the process at this moment in time.
TJ,
Thanks - got it.
https://www.gov.scot/publications/building-new-scotland-stronger-economy-independence-summary/
Not quite sure how the transition from current to future green supporting continued employment is going to be done. Aspirational is fine, but to persuade folks, there needs to be detail providing a clear and tangible personal benefit v the status quo. Brexit has created chaos and negative impacts on many and I am struggling to understand why Independance would not introduce more of the same and potentially compound such.
I concede that the SNP led SG have enacted a number of positive things, albeit these may be supported by higher taxes paid by some and I'm sure that their application is no different than similar deployments by other Govt's which ultimately serve to try to win votes.
My obvious preference would be to try to collaboratively resolve the fundamental issues impacting the population for the good of the majority and the door to this may be more open if there was less rhetoric about 'leaving'?
@benz -
I was born in Scotland and have lived and worked in Scotland most of my adult life.
However, I – like others – are challenged by – presumably ultra – nationalists who, at every turn, seek to create division, demonise others ‘The English’, accuse those of us who are happy being part of the UK as “Not a real Scot” or “A traitor”. Additionally a FM who claims to talk on behalf of all Scots – when she patently does not.
This given current and recent events related to division completely turns me off.
However, I also acknowledge the challenges the UK has as a whole – a political system which requires reform, recent blatant lies, corruption, etc.
Surely recognition of the fundamental issues facing the country and trying to build positive alliances to deal with those is hugely more positive than yet more division.
Plus the current UK and Scottish governments really need to show me a real path to stability, meaningful employment and as much prosperity as it is possible for as many as possible.
Bits of me agree with you, certainly, in 2014 I would have been very open to a much improved political system for the whole of the UK. The reality is no political party with any weight has proposed or offered that. The two main parties "like" the status quo which gives them the best chance of power. For whatever reason, the Lib Dems have failed to get across a message around political reform that has engaged the public. If another party had the balls to say Brexit was a sham, the political balance in the UK is messed up, the lords* is broken, (and monarchy is medieval BS), here is our vision for a way to do things differently (probably a federal UK more closely aligned to Europe [not necessarily full EU membership], and likely a written constitution) then I would certainly be all ears. There is absolutely no sign of that coming from any party of note which tells me that those parties don't share my concerns and if I want to live in a society that is based on values of honesty, integrity, genuine social mobility, with positive freedoms and alliances I used to enjoy as an EU citizen I can't really do that in the UK. The only choices seriously being suggested are more of the same or Indy. It may be too late to back peddle on the damage that has been done, although if anyone even credibly tried it would undoubtedly slow the Indy momentum. I don't recognise the unhelpful comments about "not a real scot" or "a traitor" as being normal language or discussion points from anyone credible - they seem like the sort of thing that comes up on social media, and you will only see those comments if you engage with the muppets linked to them. Its entirely possible to avoid. Opposing a plan because a tiny minority of its supporters are vitreolic nutters is a pretty poor reason - especially since fans of the status quo aren't all pleasant and positive either.
* FWIW I've never met anyone who thought the HOL was a logical system for a second chamber but I think it actually does a useful job of curtailing the craziness of HOC party democracy. I'm actually not even opposed to the idea of the second chamber being appointed rather than elected but its bloated and full of people who are there for all the wrong reasons.
tjagain
Full MemberIRC – thats the limitations of the scots tax raising powers and its not an additional band / complication or cost
Yes it is. Derek (Laffer) MacKay brought in a Scottish 19% tax band for roughly the first £2K of taxable income. So in Scotland the low paid save 1% of £2000 compared to England. Which lets the SNP boast about the lower paid paying less tax. Technically true but not by enough to buy a takeway curry for 2 people. So complication for political reasons. If you are going to fiddle with tax bands to help the low paid at least make it enough to be worthwhile.
So Scotland has a (marginally) more complicated income tax system so the SNP could play politics.
Might mean voters on £30k-£43k paying more though and that is a lot of voters.
I'm pretty sure that there are not enough reverse brexit votes in England to win a GE. I would love to be proven wrong. I think there are arse holes on both sides of the debate in Scotland. As a long tìme supporter of Independence I find some of the indy supporters with their various comments about "real Scot" etc are actually doing damage to the indy cause.
We all do it we all get angry or tweet or speak out in haste and regret it later. Some do it all the time, those are the arse holes
I was thinking earlier about the Supreme Court judgement. People are framing it as England preventing Scotland from leaving. But it's actually not that, not quite. The UK reserved judgement on things affecting the whole UK during the devolution process, and losing nearly half its territory clearly affects the UK. Many Scots seem to view the Westminster government as if it were the English government.
We have Scottish, Welsh and NI governments but not an English government, and I think this was a massive blunder. It reinforces Anglocentricism in the Union* and fosters this kind of divisive argument. If there were a UK-wide govt and a separate English one on a par with the others, it would be a completely different situation. We would have needed a proper constitution as well, which would also have helped.
* Not that it's much of a union. I mean ironically given the context the union with Scotland was the only one with any political agreement on both sides. Wales simply got conquered, annexed, oppressed, exploited and then left to rot.
irc - I thought (but maybe remembering wrong) that it was a “softener” to make the higher rates and lower thresholds in Scotland more palettable. IIRC it was a bigger saving when it started? And I think last time it was reviewed the estimate was 1:10 Scot’s pay more than they would in England. Ability to set corporation tax, inheritance tax and capital gains would make a big difference to the levers of ecconomic power. There was a plan for local income tax too but it’s disappeared - I think it hit a Westminster blocker because they would not pay Council Tax benefit if it wasn’t a classic council tax. Even better if they could set welfare including pensions - that would test the political rhetoric!
I’m pretty sure that there are not enough reverse brexit votes in England to win a GE. I would love to be proven wrong.
whilst nobody os campaigning for it it’s unlikely to gain attention. It needs someone brave enough to stand up and say “this is not what people voted for”. I would suggest that its possible to do that in a way that respects the vote to leave the EU - and keep a lot of people except the Farage fans happy by joining EEA/EFTA.
No it has always been a trivial circa £20 a year saving for anyone earning less than £24k. Above £24k the 21p rate starts clawing it back.
The UK reserved judgement on things affecting the whole UK during the devolution process, and losing nearly half its territory clearly affects the UK.
You really might want to rephrase that Molgrips
Whose territory?
Whose territory?
The UK. There is a hint in the name. Its not England.
You really might want to rephrase that Molgrips
Whose territory?
No it's fine. The UK would lose nearly half it's territory in the event of Scottish independence. Scotland currently being part of the UK, of course.
The UK. There is a hint in the name. Its not England.
Lets be honest shall we. It is England, or rather London, and its ruling class which for centuries has considered itself as the only ones who matter, and the 'provinces' only fit to be told what to do.
Well thats made your position clear molgrips. You see Scotland as a region and a subservient one at that. thats really offensive and wrong in law.
TJ, how much money do you reckon gets wasted on free prescriptions?
none because
1) very few folk paid for prescriptions anyway
2) by making them free for everyone it simplifies administration thus saving costs
3) this prevents illhealth because under a system of charging for prescriptions people who are not eligible for free prescription under the old system but who have multiple medications the cost of prescriptions could be high enough to mean they didn't fill some prescription thus leading to further illhealth at a cost to society
but that is still hyperbole – they have the power, they may elect not to do so, but that is how democracy works – what you want is a Scottish right of veto over any policy affecting Scotland.
A bit like how the EU works?
Is the free prescriptions policy targetting Scottish health issues? Mortality figures have dropped, but healthy life expectancy has decreased (to 2021 at least) https://www.nrscotland.gov.uk/news/2022/life-expectancy-continues-to-fall-in-scotland
It's a similar situation with education. A first degree course with tuition funded by the Scottish taxpayer, but PISA scores for Scottish 15-year olds have been declining for 15 years in reading, maths and science. PISA isn't a rounded assessment but it's one that the Scottish Government use https://www.gov.scot/publications/programme-international-student-assessment-pisa-2018-highlights-scotlands-results/
Unfortunately, while Indyref 2 is at the forefront of many people's minds, the SNP is not the party that you'd want in charge.
I think Sturgeon a capable politician and a leader far above any other UK politician. Apart from anything else she actually looks like she believes what she says and is prepared to both admit mistakes and accept blame
Like she has over CalMac/Ferguson Marine Ltd? "Wheel out the Deputy First Minister..."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-63066317
@timba overall she's a capable politician and first minister.
Otherwise it's a tit for tat, good/bad arguement. Which is what is exactly wrong with politics.
Doing ok at running the country, ah but what about this one thing which is not directly in your remit but you have oversight of?
Unfortunately, while Indyref 2 is at the forefront of many people’s minds, the SNP is not the party that you’d want in charge.
More capable than any other political party but I agree its a low bar
One thing to make clear. Independence is not about having an SNP government. Its about having a government we elect.
The independence movement is far more than the SNP
The independence movement is far more than the SNP
Absolutely. There don't seem to be too many options to the SNP just now and on current form they aren't going to improve an independent Scotland
[url= https://i.postimg.cc/G2DBkRtd/316093284-448754014081578-5279335261414710488-n.jp g" target="_blank">https://i.postimg.cc/G2DBkRtd/316093284-448754014081578-5279335261414710488-n.jp g"/> [/img][/url]
Doing ok at running the country
See education and health. Standards have dropped ever since the SNP came to power in 2007
To be clear, if Scotland wants independence then, as with our former commonwealth countries, they should have it but be careful what you wish for with the SNP in charge
Education and health are IIRC around 3/4 of the spending controlled by holyrood. given increased demand and cuts to the scottish government budgets because of cuts imposed by westminster something has to give
also Scottish NHS admin spend is half of Englands per capita because Scotland does not have the fake internal market.
Has the Scots government under the SNP been more or less competent than the government of the UK under the tories?
And finally once again. A vote for independence is not a vote for an SNP government
And finally once again. A vote for independence is not a vote for an SNP government
I understand that.
In September 2014 the date for Scottish Independence was set for 24th March 2016, roughly 18 months, and FM Alex Salmond announced that his DFM Nicola Sturgeon would lead negotiation talks
That precedent is that something similar would happen in the future, I stick by "There don’t seem to be too many options to the SNP just now..." and "be careful what you wish for with the SNP in charge"
Thats because the other political parties operating in Scotland ( apart from the greens) are refusing to take part. they could put their 2 bobs worth in but will not.
Absolutely. There don’t seem to be too many options to the SNP just now and on current form they aren’t going to improve an independent Scotland
are you assuming that the “unionist” parties withdraw from Scotland if there is Indy and we are just left with snp? I would expect that they finally find their voice, no longer cow towing to their U.K. party and together with the inevitable split in the SNP you have a collection of parties to pick from without one policy meaning you get domination by one. The irony being that such a paradigm could actually mean that the successor to the Conservative and Unionist Party actually manages to become a significant power in Scotland: wouldn’t it be ironic if Indy could be the route for Tories to actually get elected to power in Scotland!
Well thats made your position clear molgrips. You see Scotland as a region and a subservient one at that.
That is literally the exact opposite of what I am saying. How on earth do you draw that conclusion? You aren't interested in my point at all, you just want me to be wrong. You really need to read more carefully and calmly:
What I'm saying is that England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland should all have the same status. They don't because of the devolution settlement, and that's wrong.
Thats because the other political parties operating in Scotland ( apart from the greens) are refusing to take part. they could put their 2 bobs worth in but will not.
im convinced this is a massive mistake - they are squabbling amongst themselves over the unionist vote rather than trying to appeal to the Indy vote with either a better vision on Indy or a better version on the union. I was hoping starmer would be the shake up needed to make that happen but I’m guessing he’s too much Westminster/Whitehall establishment to really understand the challenge up north.
Molgrips - I did read it carefully and calmly
Its clear that you do not grasp the basic concepts involved here.
Its not i want you to be wrong. Its that you are being really offensive. You could try listening and understanding. You could reconsider the words used because what you wrote does not say what you claim.
you refer to scotland as UK territory. Thats just wrong and offensive.
Poly - When Sarwar first became Scottish leader he made some good noises about this. About wanting Scottish labour to be able to develop a policy set for Scotland and to look at constitutional issues. Then total silence. I assume someone put him back in his hutch
you refer to scotland as UK territory. Thats just wrong and offensive.
But Scotland is part of the UK, isn't it?
Mologrips
direct quote from you
The UK would lose nearly half it’s territory
I am assuming the "its" refers to the UK "territory" refers to ownership
So what that is saying is Scotland has no rights to ownership or control of the land mass / seabed) ( which is incorrect in law)and thus is subservient to the UK
There is no "UK territory" there are 4 constituent countries in a political union. Scotland ( unlike Wales IIRC) has its own legal system and Scotland and it surrounding seabed is under scots law not UK law. some UK law applies to scotland yes but thats applied thru Scottish courts under scottish jurisdiction
the UK does not own Scotland
I am assuming the “its” refers to the UK “territory” refers to ownership
No, it refers to thebfact that UK has a territorial extent like every country and Scotland falls within it. You're making far more out of this than you need to.
There is no “UK territory”
Don't be bloody ridiculous. The territory of the UK is the area within its borders. It's that simple. You're perfectly entitled to want Scotland to be within or without that border. But trying to justify it with semantic gymnastics is just weird. There are many far better points to make that this one.
the UK does not own Scotland
No, but Scotland is part of the UK which makes Scotland UK territory and governed in part by UK government. Yes, you may want to change that, that's fine, but that's simply the way it is now in the most basic possible terms. But whatever, this discussion has been reduced to pointless quibbling. Let's move on.
Its not pointless quibbling Molgrips
Your statements show two things
1) you do not understand basic concepts
2) You will not listen to anyone else
No, it refers to thebfact that UK has a territorial extent like every country and Scotland falls within it.
So Scotland is a subservient entity ( not a country) and the Uk is a country ( not a union of countries) in your view?
Words are important which is why I suggested you might want to rephrase your statement. As it is you just keep on doubling down on being offensive.
Have you considered editing Wikipedia? I'm sure they need some of your constitutional expertise in this area.
So Scotland is a subservient entity
Subservient? Emotive word. Constituent, is more accurate.
Molgrips - I am not the only one who reads your posts as this. You have been consistently called out for this by me and others as you refuse to accept that they way you post on this.
You seem to view Scotland as a region in the same way as "the north west of england" is. You posts continually state this
Edit: - subservient is right because the way you state it is that the rights of the rest of the UK override the rights of scotland
You are a constituent part of STW. That's not the same as a subservient one. You have to follow the rules set by STW.
You seem to view Scotland as a region in the same way as “the north west of england” is. You posts continually state this
It's a country in the UK which is also a country. The UK is a country of countries. We've done this before. Last time I looked this up it turned out there isn't a standar definition of the word "country" so it's moot.
The point about e.g. Northumberland was an attempt to provoke thought about what Scotland is and isn't and what those borders really mean.
I'm certainly subservient to STW as I have no say in the rules
Molgrips - I know you do not intend to be so offensive but please try listening.
You seem to feel slighted by my comments. Why might that be? Saying you're part of the UK isn't meant to be derogatory. Remember that I also live in a UK country that's had a far shittier deal over the centuries than Scotland has. I've got far more grounds for grievance than you but I can accept the way things are whilst still considering change.
Fact is, the UK is a country of countries with a UK-wide government. That makes Scotland UK territory, quite logically. The law as it stands is clear, hence the judgement.
Scotland does need UK legislation to hold a referendum, but it's morally wrong for the UK govt to withhold it.
That makes Scotland UK territory, quite logically. The law as it stands is clear,
Indeed the law is quite clear. Scotland and the seabed around it is Scottish under scottish law.
I am annoyed by your comments because the way you keep on commenting is saying Scotland has no rights and is just another region like "the north west of england"
I am also annoyed by your refusal to listen. Its not just me.
[quote="BruceWee"] That’s how I feel whenever you say Scotland is the equivalent of just another English region.
@TJ. You're being needlessly argumentative, you know very well Moley was referring to landmass.
I wonder if part of your confusion over this Molgrips is because you do not understand the legal differences between Scotland and Wales?
Wales does not have its own legal system with its own laws ( and this predates devolution) Scotland does. This alters the relationship with the UK
Also please look up the acceptance of Scotlands territorial integrity and control of its own land and resources as is accepted under international law. This is why the sea bed around these islands has a separately defined Scottish sector because that scottish sector is under Scots law
saying Scotland has no rights
See, this is why I get cross. We're arguing online, via forum posts which is pretty imperfect. It can be hard for any of us to get our points across. But rather than trying to figure out what I mean, you assume you know, and then try and shout down whatever bad position you think I am taking. It's that assumption that is hard to deal with.
So rather than saying 'that's wrong' try saying things like 'what do you really mean?' because suffice to say on the internet you probably don't quite get what the other person means - this goes for all of us not just you.
Wales does not have its own legal system with its own laws
It used to, it was setup 300 years before it was annexed by England in 1282. The laws were in use until 1535 when they were abolished by Henry VIII. When you complain about oppression you might want to think about the Welsh perspective, but even more so that of the Irish and many other parts of the world.
Dyna ti - thats why I asked him if he wanted to rephrase it. landmass is fine as it is a geographical term not a political one
MOlgrips - which is why I asked if you wanted to rephrase it and you refused.
Its not a one off - you continually refer to Scotland in the same way as you refer to a region of the UK and that is wrong
That makes Scotland UK territory, quite logically. The law as it stands is clear,
Again perhaps sloppy language from you but the law is actually very clear on who controls the land and the seabed and its Scotland not the UK
The word territory implies ownership and control
the law is actually very clear on who controls the land and the seabed and its Scotland not the UK
Scotland isn't under UK government? That's news to me, which law are you on about?
Why are there 60-odd Scottish MPs in Westminster if they aren't part of UK government?
Try reading it molgrips
Scottish law not UK law controls the territory that is the land and seabed of Scotland not UK law and this predates devolution and is clear in international law.
this is one of the things you do not understand
this is why the north sea is defined under international law in sectors one of which is the scottish sector
You keep on using "territory" in a way that is not the meaning of the word. this is why I asked you to rephrase your contentious statement
FFS, will the pair of you sod off and take a walk away from the keyboard rather than fill the thread up with your bickering
OK
I think you need to understand the difference between law and government.
FFS, will the pair of you sod off and take a walk away from the keyboard rather than fill the thread up with your bickering
Plus 1
Watching TJ and Molgrips on this thread is kind of like watching Kelvin and Ernie have at each other at the height of their animus. This entire page seems to have been nothing except arguing about the use of the word territory.
The difference between pro-indy and pro-union is as simple as the difference between lorne sausage and square sausage for me.
The laws were in use until 1535 when they were abolished by Henry VIII. When you complain about oppression you might want to think about the Welsh perspective
Although that in itself gets somewhat complex given the Tudors were Welsh originally (although Henry VIII older brother spent time there he didnt) and the main reason for the law change was to eliminate the marcher lords as a threat.
are you assuming that the “unionist” parties withdraw from Scotland if there is Indy and we are just left with snp?
No, I'm saying that, as with 2014-16, the only party that'll be doing the negotiating will be the SNP because there isn't much of a choice.
The UK deal with the EU wasn't a stellar performance, but the SNP doesn't have any stars either
Any negotiation will also have the greens from Scots side. Which will stir the nuclear weapons pot a bit more.
It won't happen though as the UK gov will indicate that it'll negotiate in bad faith before any referendum by playing the pensions, taxes, national debt card to encourage. ie we're keeping the first two but you owe the latter. Which will worry enough voters.
You can always take a share of the debt and liabilities for a similar proportionate share in the assets…
pensions, taxes, national debt card to encourage. ie we’re keeping the first two but you owe the latter.
Well that's a interesting statement for a couple of reasons. rUK won't be getting any of the taxes raised by an independent Scotland after independance. Before that things will continue as normal, taxes will be raised and pensions and other expenditure will be paid for in real time from the taxes. There is no pensions pot to divy up. Of course there will be some division of the national debt, Scotland is currently part of the union.
Your statement sounds like project fear to me, vote for leave because the nasty rUK government will negotiate hard on behalf of its remaining citizens, much as politicians on the Scottish side will negotiate hard on behalf of Scotland. The fact Scotland is negotiating from a weaker position needs factoring into the decisions as to whether independance is a good thing or not. If you dont believe Scotland will be a weaker player in the negotiations it sort of undermines part of the argument for independance if you assert Scotland is an equal partner in the Union.
You separist bampot, ye 🤣🤣🤣
Where i come from, it's known as "slice". The wee woman in the roll shop in Glasgow got very confused when I asked for a "roll and slice, please".
A slice of what, son?
🤣🤣🤣
The wee woman in the roll shop in Glasgow got very confused when I asked for a “roll and slice, please”.
@pandhandj - You should see the look on the faces of the canteen staff in our Glasgow office when I ask for a bacon sandwich... 😱
On debts and assetts
IIRC last time around the proposal from the SNP was we would take a proportionate share of the debt in exchange for a proportionate share of the assets. Better together said you are getting nowt that is not on Scottish soil and not even all of that. The reply was we won't take any of the debt then and it became clear that the debt would belong in its entirety to rUK and Westminster had to confirm that.
So any division of debts and assets depends very much on the attitude of Westminster during the negotiation and Scotland does have two good bargaining chips - the nuclear subs and the debt. Play stupid games get stupid prizes
debt would belong in its entirety to rUK and Westminster had to confirm that.
Do you have a source for that?
One thing we can all be sure of is the rUK will not play nice when it comes to negotiations and now we're out of the EU will continue to play nasty post independance. It might not be fair or right but it is true and and leavers need to factor that into the balance when insiting Scotland will be better off alone.
“The UK Government has stated that in the event of Scottish independence, it would in all circumstances honour its issued stock of UK debt.
https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/scottish-independence-ruk-credit-rating-risk-1539973
(remember the Scotsman is a staunchly unionist paper)
In a separation, the continuing/successor state almost always takes on full ownership of the old state’s debt – a fact acknowledged by the UK during the 2014 independence campaign.
https://www.thenational.scot/news/19151128.scotland-can-negotiate-separation-assets-debt-ruk/
(A highly nationalist paper)
Notwithstanding that the SNP stated they would take a fair share of the debt even tho most of that debt has not been spent in Scotland as it would be the right thing to do but in return Scotland would want a fair share of the assets and not just the physical assets on Scottish soil
Remember also that the bank of England is the UK reserve bank partly owned by scotland.
This is one of the problems. How fair and reasonable the rUk would be is an unknown and rUK stance alters a lot of the financial stuff. If they do play total hardball Scotland starts off with no debt but without a bunch of useful assets especially the non tangible assets but we would have the nuclear subs to sell to the highest bidder 🙂 ( joke)
Yes but if rUK plays hardball Scotland is screwed in the short to medium term as rUK is by far its biggest trading partner. Eventual membership of the EU may mitigate that but Scotland has 10 to 20 years of steep decline before things start to look up. Not a huge amount of time historically but a huge chunk of people's lives.
If you want proof just see how well the UK is doing post Brexit now we've taken advantage of the freedoms of being untethered from the undemocratic ruling elite in Brussels, oh that's right trade is down with Japan post free trade deal and even the Tories admit the free trade deal with Austalia is bad for the UK.
but Scotland has 10 to 20 years of steep decline before things start to look up.
Crystal ball gazing?
IMO having control of the real levers of government would lead to quick improvements as we can have policy to suit the country. We would be back inside the EU quickly - thats what I see in my crystal ball
We would be back inside the EU quickly – thats what I see in my crystal ball
Why does your crystal ball think that? Some countries wait 20 years, e.g. Ukraine since 2005
because we are compliant with almost all EU rules / accession criteria and the political will is there.
There is no queue or waiting turns. A country applies to join and once they meet the criteria they join. there is not just political will from the Scottish side - there also is from the EU side.
but Scotland has 10 to 20 years of steep decline before things start to look up.
Yes, but that's because of the UK's chosen policy of becoming poorer (Brexit).
Did you know that a 4% decline pa of GDP means that in 10 years we'll be only 2/3rds of our current 'economic size'?
Or, if we rejoin we'll be half as big again?
A country applies to join and once they meet the criteria they join.
If all the member states agree. And if you don't meet all the criteria they might still agree to let you in. There is a political element to it.
Speaking as a Scot living in Ireland I dont think Scottish independence would be all plain sailing. I am not sure how easy/quick it would be to join the EU. Look at the mess brexit has made of the Irish border, I would see issues with England (our biggest trading partner). If we adopt the euro then the EU will dictate a lot of our financial decisions (look at the crash of 2009 and what that meant for ireland/Greece etc) so we would not be as independent as we think. The way I see it (in simple terms) is do we want to answer to the UK or Europe. There is no true independence nowadays.
So Germany and france are not independent countries?
the main differnce is in the EU we would get a say and a veto over some stuff. In the Uk we do not.
What freedoms would independence bring and which of these freedoms would we keep 100% control over if we joined the EU/euro. Until I have clearer picture I dont know what I would vote, not that I get a say in the matter so it's a moot point.
The key ones are the ability to raise money on international markets and to be able to rejig the benefits / taxation system to suit scotland along with immigration policy to suit Scotland all of which would would have power over.
Taxation is one I would question. The EU (well Germany and france as the biggest players) want a level playing field on that and keep pushing for Ireland to change its preferential corporation tax. I think if we sign up to EU/euro, as a small fish in a big pond, we would not get to dictate our terms too much and will be made to sign up on terms that suit the big hitters. Really don't want to turn this into a brexit issue either but europe is getting more and more say as the years go by. What we think we will get now may not be what we get in 10 years time. There are other taxation issues the EU want such as water charges causing issues here.
So why do we have widely varying income tax and benefit systems across the EU?
as part of their bail out Greece were made to change lost of these (pensions etc). My simplistic understanding (and I am no expert) is that you can do what you want with tax as long as you don't upset anyone in the EU. If you over spend or undercut other countries they make a new rule/step in to level it back up as they did in the bail outs/corporation tax/ water charges etc