[Closed] Scotland to help pay deficit - even if independence goes ahead

Listened to Danny Alexander explain on R5 how Scotland would be asked to help repay the deficit even if they became independent.

Pretty obvious that we'd take on what ever share of the national debt (subject to negotiations as to how it should be calculated) as it stood at the point of a Yes vote was along with any assets at the same time.

It could all get very interesting for Scotland's economy if Salmond refused ...

What do you mean? Care to elaborate?

Is it me or does Danny look like Beaker from the Muppets?

Not just you, but not really very relevant....

Sounds fair.

Debt or deficit? Sharing the repayment of debt seems to be generally accepted, although how exactly to calculate each nation's share of it does not yet seem to have been worked out. Defecit you can't repay. You borrow to cover it, then it becomes debt, then you repay it. Whether Scotland has one will depend on them.

[i]Listened to Danny Alexander[/i]

Well I'd give that a miss for a start. Likley to be the first sacrifice at the nnext lelection when the Lib dems try to get out of their Tory attachment.
Meantime, we either get to keep a share of the UK assets, or the UK gets to keep all the debt, which, remember, is in te name of UK, of which Scotland will no longer be part of so will have no legal obligation to pay.

[quote=matther01 ]Listened to Danny Alexander explain on R5 how Scotland would be asked to help repay the deficit even if they became independent.
This was covered in the Scottish Govt White Paper weeks ago and has been the policy position of the Yes campaign since it began. Expect some horse-trading on things like, oh I don't know, currency union?
[quote=ChubbyBlokeInLycra ] the UK gets to keep all the debt, which, remember, is in te name of UK, of which Scotland will no longer be part of so will have no legal obligation to pay.
This ^ is the important part and was the reason for the Treasury announcement today.

Apologies...should have been debt.

Financial lenders would likely hike lending rates to Scotland if they didn't help repay or went back on any deal to help repay if they were independent.

To be fair to Danny he did say Scotland could repay at very low rates.

I guess if the scots want to start their new country by walking away from their obligations then there's not much the english, welsh and northern-irish can do other than pick up the burden left by our friends in holyrood.

[i]Financial lenders would likely hike lending rates to Scotland if they didn't help repay[/i]

Repay what? Scotland has no outstanding debts. The UK owns all currnt debts. If the UK wants to keep the assets it claims to own, it gets to keep all the liabilities incurred in acquiring those assets. Scotland will not default on any debts, so no reason for a poor credit rating. Project Fear strikes again.

And the odious toad likes to bandy around worlds like responsible and bullying. This stems from the BS pretence that a currency is an asset (it's not, if anything strictly speaking its a liability) and hence if Scoltand is not automatically allowed to keep sterling, they would default on their debt liabilities (or at least threaten this). Some statesman, some responsibility??? So the Treasury has to make reassuring noises today to assure investors that all current debt would be honoured irrespective of the outcome of the vote.

They guy is an economist, so he can't even pretend to not know what he is doing. And he calls CMD arrogant!?!? Bloody weasel.

Scotland is such a big place with few people in it in relative terms, if they do decide to go the full independence route their taxes will likely rise a big way------ free perceptions, free university places-- it all has to be paid for! North Sea gas & oil is a finite resource so what happens when it all gone?

Spot on thm.

There is a perfectly legitimate debate how to split national debt if that becomes a necessity but no case to threaten default.

[i]walking away from their obligations [/i]
Again, what obligations? the Uk government incurred debt to acquire assets If we don't get a share of those assets why should we get a share of the debt incurred in acquiring them?
Of couse the UK government could start negotiations on how to split debt/assets but chooses not to.

[i]they would default on their debt liabilities[/i]

what debt liabilities would these be and why haven't you mentioned the assets that those liabilities were incurred to procure?

For one minute I thought Scotland was still part of the UK at the minute!!!! Scotland has still been supported by money from Westminster so why should it not share part of the debt. You cant have it both ways!!!!

Chubby bloke - start at page 71 in the book of dreams. Even salmond doesn't pretend that Scotland doesn't/won't have debts. It comes from a BS argument when he got caught with his pants down over assuming (not for the first time) something that can't be assumed - in this case, that Scotland would have automatic choice over using sterling.

The correct question is what are the assets you are talking about, A currency is not and never has been an asset.

free perceptions

Are the tories going to tax all perceptions, or only perceptions different from their own 😉

Fine, but only when you've given our £398,085 & 10s back

with inflation and interest since 1707 😉

[quote=teamhurtmore ]It comes from a BS argument when he got caught with his pants down over assuming (not for the first time) something that can't be assumed - in this case, that Scotland would have automatic choice over using sterling.
Scotland [i]does[/i] have automatic choice over using Sterling. As does every other independent country. 🙄

The tories will Tax anything anything ha ha !!!!!!

I wouldn't worry about the University places. If Scotland gains independence the universities in Scotland would essentially cease to function overnight, so you couldn't get a place worth having even if you wanted one. This is particularly true for the major research led institutions (Edinburgh, Glasgow, Dundee, St Andrews, Aberdeen) who rely on research income to support their teaching capacity.

Not fear mongering, I know for a fact that the one I work at doesn't really have a plan for what would happen in the case of independence because it would be so cataclysmic to the entire sector, and there are so many unknowns (or SNP unspokens), as to render all planning meaningless.

The Scottish University sector is not a cheery place at the moment.

[i]For one minute I thought Scotland was still part of the UK at the minute!!!! Scotland has still been supported by money from Westminster[/i]
We'll ignore Scotland being a net contributer so actually supporting Westminter, not the other way round, shall we?

[i]start at page 71 in the book of dreams. [/i]
Page 1, book of facts. All current UK debts are incurred in the name of the UK governemt. Scotland will have no debts. Scotland will also have no assets, and will buy those state assets by assuming some of the UK debt. We don't get the assets, we don't take on the debt. Really, how hard is that to understand, even for you?

If Scotland is so rich & is a net contributor to Westminster then why has it accepted the money that has flowed its way for years from Westminster?????

[i]The correct question is what are the assets you are talking about[/i]
[img] [/img]
[img] [/img]

Scotland's desire to use sterling [u]requires approval.[/u] It is not automatic. That is simply not true and Salmond knows that.

Odd that the book of dreams has a whole chapter on the debt issue if they don't exist. I know there are lots of white lies in there, but even Salmond wouldn't go that far.

thm, he was on the radio this morning saying that Scotland had no legal responsibility to take on UK debt, but suggested that Scotland may take some almost as a favour. Alistair Darling made the point you did regarding the pound not being a divisible asset in the ordinary sense. I don't see as big issues with Scotland entry to EU and open borders as I do with trying to forge a currency union.

Surely this would require Scotland to have some say over rUK policy and vice versa, similar to scrutiny within the Euro zone?

I did laugh during Dear leader interview on R4 repeatedly stating the Bank of England was founded by a Scot,

Dear Leader - "The Bank of England was founded by a Scot"
Weary Presenter - "You have already said that. You keep bandying it about as if it actually matters"
Dear Leader -"erm???? I was only saying.

[i]If [s]Scotland[/s] England is so rich and is a net contributor to Westminster then why has it acicepted the money that has flowed its way for years from [s]Westminster[/s]Scotland????? [/i]
Why are you so desperate not to lose Scorland from what little reamins of your empire? After all, the economy is so screwed you're lookimg at cuts left, right and centre. Surely losing a whole country as a liability is a good thing? Unless said country isn't actually a liability, you just want the popukatoim to believe they are so you get to benefit from their net contributions?

I don't see the link between debt and accets. I may be wrong but surely the debts aren't secured against any assets. Has not most of the debt money come from paying for things such as services, intrest on debt etc etc, that's not to say some of it hasn't bought "things" I just thought most of it didn't.

I'm not for or against you getting independence, your big enough to make your own decisions. I just hope it's one you can live with either way. For me (Welsh) on one hand it would be sad to see you go, I'm sure we'd all get over it. But on the other I would really like to see what happens, also we can have a good look who's argument about the concequences was right. Although I suspect one fact will be true, that being the act of separation will cost everyone a shed load of money as anything that involves lawyers always does.

We'll ignore Scotland being a net contributer so actually supporting Westminter, not the other way round, shall we?

This only holds true if you assume that Scotland, rather than the UK, has owned all the north sea oil and gas since it was discovered (even the SNP admit this part). If, as seems fair at the moment, you apportion north sea revenue on a UK per capita basis Scotland has paid about the same tax per capita but has had more spent on it per capita than the rest of the UK. So on a per capita basis Scotland is a net drain on UK finances.

Assets: Not just the expensive shooty things but the roads, schools, hospitals, police, etc...................

The whole mechanism that is required for Scotland to keep sterling makes a mockery of the notion of economic independence. Scotland would have been less influence over macro policy that (it thinks) it has now.

[i]So on a per capita basis Scotland is a net drain on UK finances. [/i]
so you'll be better off without us then? what's the problem?
And well be better off without subsidising you. win win

The correct question is what are the assets you are talking about

[img] [/img]

[i]This only holds true if you assume that Scotland, rather than the UK, has owned all the north sea oil and gas since it was discovered (even the SNP admit this part).[/i]
so scotland IS a net contributer then?

Buckfast is produced in Devon, what's your point caller?

[quote=teamhurtmore ]The whole mechanism that is required for Scotland to keep sterling makes a mockery of the notion of economic independence. Scotland would have been less influence over macro policy that (it thinks) it has now.
It currently has none. You can't get less than zero.

Almost but not quite. Worse than zero is having policy imposed on you that is directly opposed to your needs. That is negative and therefore less than zero. Ask anyone in the periphery.

all the debt, which, remember, is in te name of UK, of which Scotland will no longer be part of so will have no legal obligation to pay

If you apply this logic then Scotland has no automatic right to North Sea Oil. All of the international agreements carving up the north sea were made in the name of the UK govt

Its Shetland's oil

Salmond derides the Tories economic policy and the cuts associated with austerity etc. And yet under his plans and without an independent lender of last resort, he would be required to match them under a stability pact and without having any say on how far or fast that fiscal austerity would be. Absurd.

As McCrone puts it (but with a slightly different idea of your own central bank and lender if last resort)

The lesson I draw from this is that an independent Scotland could not continue to use sterling as if nothing had changed. A lender of last resort would be required to deal with speculative pressures and possible crises. This would require a Scottish Central Bank and it should issue its own currency, which could be pegged to sterling. If a Scottish Government did not always want to accept policies decided for the rest of the UK and objected to oversight of its fiscal policy by authorities in London, its exchange rate could be altered. The possibility that this might happen, however, could affect the price and rate of interest of Scottish Government bonds.

All of this just goes to show that the declared option of staying with sterling would be far from a simple matter for an independent Scotland, and how that is dealt with would have major implications for the economy. There is a good deal to be considered and explained before we vote in the referendum.

The answer is not in the book of dreams (on which note, it's time for my dreams. Good night!)

[i]If you apply this logic then Scotland has no automatic right to North Sea Oil. All of the international agreements carving up the north sea were made in the name of the UK govt [/i]
..ams if CMD wasn' so scared of negotiating th post independance situation, that would be under negotiation right now. But he is, so the oil is in what may become Scottish waters, so it's ours.

Almost but not quite. Worse than zero is having policy imposed on you that is directly opposed to your needs. That is negative and therefore less than zero. Ask anyone in the periphery.

So on a per capita basis Scotland is a net drain on UK finances.

so you'll be better off without us then? what's the problem?
And well be better off without subsidising you. win win

I didn't say England would be better off without Scotland (BTW I live in Dundee just in case you think I'm writing this from Westminster). I said that "on a per capita basis Scotland is a net drain on UK finances". I firmly believe that the rest of the UK [u]and[/u] Scotland will suffer if a yes vote happens. There will be no winners.

This only holds true if you assume that Scotland, rather than the UK, has owned all the north sea oil and gas since it was discovered (even the SNP admit this part).

so scotland IS a net contributer then?

Read what I wrote. Now read what you wrote. The UK is what exists at the moment therefore all taxation and spending exists in the context of the UK. If and when the two countries go their separate ways then, and only then, does taxation and spending become a Scotland/rest of UK issue. As for who owns what of the north sea gas and oil - where do you think the money to get it all going came from? Yep, you guessed it, the UK coffers. So it is a whole UK issue.

So in short; Scotland is not currently a net contributor to the UK economy on a per capita basis.

Gowrie - Member

Its Shetland's oil

Why are you so desperate not to lose Scorland from what little reamins of your empire?

It may come as a surprise to you ChubbyBloke but from my experience as a Scot living in England for the last 25 years most English couldn't give a sh!t whether Scotland is part of the union or not. Most English I've spoken to about this just say well if they want independence why don't they just get on with it?

This is a bizarre argument from the No campaign. As pointed out up the page, Scotland has always accepted that she will take a proportion of the national debt. The exact proportion would be a matter for negotiation, as would many things, though the assumption is a per-capita split (it should be added that this is also the worst case scenario)

But look a little further. As of 2012, UK public debt stood at 72% of UK GDP. The Scottish share as apportioned by % of population stood at 62% of Scotland's GDP. Which, incidentally, is also better than France and Germany, not just the UK. So with the worst-case split we're [i]better off[/i].

So this is another of those things where the No campaign tries to scare us with something that, when you look more closely, is actually an improvement for Scotland. Quite bizarre. If you changed the wording and presented the facts better (and I have to say, using UK government numbers), it could be a Yes campaign story but instead the No campaign are telling us we'll be Better Apart.

(incidentally, Scotland's deficit also runs smaller than the UK average- 5% of GDP to the UK's 7.9%- so not only would we have a smaller national debt, it would be growing slower.) Better Apart again.

<aside>

I mentioned that it's a subject for negotiation- and there is a fun alternative to the simple population split... There's a good case to be made that it should be based on the financial history that led to the national debt. In other words rather than arbitrarily assigning a share, you get the share that you incurred. And since Scotland gives more to the UK economy than it takes...

As it turns out, based on UK government figures, 90% of the UK debt was incurred since 1981, and of that, $49bn was incurred in Scotland. That represents just 5.1% of the national debt.

Based on this logic, Scotland's share of the national debt is just £56bn, as opposed to the £92 billion you get from a per capita split

Just to summarise that point- as of 2012, UK public debt stood at 72% of UK GDP. The Scottish share as apportioned by % of population stood at 62% of GDP. The fairer historical distribution drops that to just 38%.

(also... is it just me, or do you have to ask how it is that Scotland's share is so small in the first place? Now I don't know whether it's just because of our greater financial contribution, or if it's because there's an unfair distribution of public spending, but it's either or both.)

ineedabeer - Member

Scotland is such a big place with few people in it in relative terms, if they do decide to go the full independence route their taxes will likely rise a big way------ free perceptions, free university places-- it all has to be paid for! North Sea gas & oil is a finite resource so what happens when it all gone?

Subtracting oil, Scotland's gross value added per capita is just 1% less than the UK's. The IFS says "Ignoring North Sea oil and gas, Scottish tax revenues per head are almost the same as the UK
average". An independent Scotland with no oil would be on a fairly equal footing with the UK. Leaving aside our lower deficit and national debt, anyway (aside- increasing our deficit to match the UK average would certainly enable us to exceed current public spending, even completely ignoring oil and gas revenue. Not that we'd want to do do that, but it's a thought)

Scottish public spending is actually lower as a percentage of GDP than the UK as a whole, incidentally- Westminster and the No campaign make much of the fact that we spend more per head, but ignore that we pay for it, and more. 9.6% of public spending goes to Scotland, 9.9% of GDP comes from Scotland. Better Apart again.

So the oil bonus, which is what turns us from "more or less the same, leaving aside the much lower national debt and deficit". Yes, it's finite. Which is not an argument for leaving it in the hands of westminster- is 90% of a finite resource more or less than 9.6%? Actually, that turns out to be an argument for taking control of it sooner rather than later eh? There'd be less urgency if it were infinite.

Oh, universities- since Scotland's universities are a net gain to the economy of Scotland to the tune of £6.2bn per annum, we don't need to worry too much about those funded university places ta. (the exact cost to the taxpayer of fees is surprisingly hard to pin down, but SFC figures suggest it's £.6bn per year).

Oh, universities- since Scotland's universities are a net gain to the economy of Scotland to the tune of £6.2bn per annum, we don't need to worry too much about those funded university places ta. (the exact cost to the taxpayer of fees is surprisingly hard to pin down, but SFC figures suggest it's £.6bn per year).

Pretty much all of which comes from the central UK pot on the basis of quality. Something which Scottish universities disproportionately excel at compared to the rest of the UK so take an equally disproportionate share. That is why we are so good at University education, research and all of the knock-on effects that they have. So far the SNP, Salmond or Sturgeon have failed to give any kind of answer as to how this could continue to be funded at this level. This was even after a direct question at a special University visit by Salmond.

Not very reassuring if you ask me.

Most English I've spoken to about this just say well if they want independence why don't they just get on with it?

teamhurtmore - Member

Almost but not quite. Worse than zero is having policy imposed on you that is directly opposed to your needs.

Ah yes, the likely scenario that the UK's financial policy regarding sterling suddenly becomes directly opposed to Scotland's needs.

Shackleton - Member

Pretty much all of which comes from the central UK pot on the basis of quality.

And as such is included in the numbers above, wherein Scotland received less public funds than it provides, based on UK government figures.

It all rather misses the point, though. No matter how it's paid, it's a cost to "the taxpayer". Pay from tax revenue or directly from members of the public's pocket. And since graduates on average earn more, and pay more tax... God knows what the actual balance of payment is for the average graduate but ultimately, taxpayers pay for it either way.

Most English I've spoken to about this just say well if they want independence why don't they just get on with it?

So why can't we?

Possibly because most English people are no better informed than most Scottish people. Most English people I know can't work out what the fuss is about. Westminster screws everybody, it's not that Scotland is a special case.

If we are going to be ideological and knee jerky I personally would be in favour of the UK becoming independent from everything inside the M25.

I didn't say England would be better off without Scotland

So on a per capita basis Scotland is a net drain on UK finances.

As for who owns what of the north sea gas and oil - where do you think the money to get it all going came from? Yep, you guessed it, the UK coffers.

So in short; Scotland is not currently a net contributor to the UK economy on a per capita basis.

Pretty much all of which comes from the central UK pot on the basis of quality.

And as such is included in the numbers above, wherein Scotland received less public funds than it provides, based on UK government figures.

You must be reading very different figures to the ones I read.........

Most English I've spoken to about this just say well if they want independence why don't they just get on with it?

So why can't we?

Eh, I'm pretty sure all it takes is for the majority in Scotland to vote yes this year and you'll have your wish after a bit of negotiation.

If we are going to be ideological and knee jerky I personally would be in favour of the UK becoming independent from everything [s]inside[/s] south of the M25.

Or variable devolution, based on Daily Mail sales per capita. Fewer sales = higher self determination

Now that I'll agree with you on!

Shackleton, divergence in figures will mostly be because of playing silly buggers with oil and "forgetting" to incorporate it into Scotland's revenues, most likely. The figures I quoted based on regional GDP correctly allocate those revenues.

NW are you posting the debt incurred data since 1980 with a straight face? Hmm, 1980 I wonder why that date is chosen....what is it with lies and statistics (on both sides). Do the same maths starting in 1990 just for an experiment!!!

(Now, really must get to sleep)

So if Scotland has no assets from the debt can we have all the roads/rails etc back? 🙄

Can't believe there is no answers to massive elephants in the room like this when people are going to voting on it soon.

teamhurtmore - Member

NW are you posting the debt incurred data since 1980 with a straight face? Hmm, 1980 I wonder why that date is chosen....what is it with lies and statistics (on both sides). Do the same maths starting in 1990 just for an experiment!!!

The 1980 figure is used because that's where we have consistent figures back to. Yes you can play games with datasets and start later but... give me a reason to do that, other than to skew the numbers.

The failure of the data is exactly the opposite, it doesn't go back quite far enough, completing it back to the mid-70s would make more sense (the point where debt stabilised after the wars). But it seems that this earlier period would actually make the numbers look even better for Scotland, so let's magnanimously write that gain off 😉

The figures break where we run out of evidence not where we run out of advantage, so that should put your concern about bias to rest.

Oh- do bear in mind that the final figure includes the historical debt predating 1980- it encompasses the whole debt not just since 1980. I'm not clear whether the split for that pre-1980 figure was done by pop cap or by extending the historical percentage back, but that can only give you a couple of prcent- ie a couple of billion pounds- of skew anyway so makes no difference to the result, only to the detail

The split per cap does have simplicity and neatness on its side, and I can't stress enough, still leaves Scotland better off than the UK is today, on both debt and deficit. That's the most important point here.

wiggles - Member

Can't believe there is no answers to massive elephants in the room like this when people are going to voting on it soon.

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

But luckily, we don't need the exact answer, we can assess likely outcomes and as detailed above, the worst likely scenario- a % split of debt by capita- still works out substantially to our benefit, and gives us a better debt/gdp ratio not just than we have now as part of the UK, but than France and Germany. Nobody has come up with any option that doesn't do this, in fact. So we can't tell exactly how much better off we'll be, but we can say with confidence that we will be. Good enough?

THM,ever wondered why the "book of dreams" as you call it,is vague? You are quick to belittle the Nat's plan for a Indy Scotland,yet like all the project fear supporters you carefully ignore the fact that this is a situation created by Westminster to ensure that they can avoid having to give straight answers as to any POTENTIAL losses and benefits of cutting ourselves lose. If your lot had ever sat down and discussed any terms,then the no vote would have the right to rubbish any SNP plans. Until then the white paper is more valid than anything the no campaign has done.At least the SNP has the bottle to set out what they want to happen.

Oh dear. Que Alex saying England wants to burden and saddle our fledging nation with debt. We shall take our fight to the EU etc.

UK owns the debt not Scotland. Eh? Scotland is in the UK. Seen the Union Jack? The national debt is HUGE. Chubbyblokeinlycra when you eat in a fancy Scottish restaurant do you often run out of the fire escale? Me thinks you do laddy.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/13/north-sea-oil-money-uk-norwegians-fund

@chubbyblokeinlycra - here in Lancashire almost everyone i speak to on this issue is leaning towards Scotland leaving the Union, from "do what you like we don't care" to "can't wait for Scotland to go" attitudes. In fact i only know two people who are opposed to Scottish Independence - and they are both Scots/Scottish descent. The English i know want Scotland gone on the whole. Whether this is down to disliking Scots or simply being bored of the issue is for them to say.
Far from wanting to 'keep a little bit of Empire' i suspect there will be a few parties in England should Independence be achieved.

Well, it's clearly getting chubbychap in a tizz so I'm for anything that calms this chap down. 😉

I'd be sad to see you go, & I've never been to Scotland.
I've seen it on Monarch of the Glen though, it looks nice.

If your lot [b]had never signed the Edinburgh agreement written by the Yes campaign which clearly details the timeline for the vote and the subsequent negotiations[/b], then the no vote would have the right to rubbish any [s]SNP[/s] Yes Campaign plans

FTFY,

My particular favorite from Salmonds Christmas list was renewables obligations – ‘We propose that a single GB-wide market for electricity and gas will continue, helping the rest of the UK secure its supply and meet its renewables obligations, provided that the system also meets Scottish requirements for security of supply.’

So you want the rest of the UK to subsidise the white elephant windfarms so Scotland can then supply it’s surplus energy back to the UK at higher cost than the UK can get it from France or Holland – Cake and eat it!

Scottish public spending is actually lower as a percentage of GDP than the UK as a whole, incidentally- Westminster and the No campaign make much of the fact that we spend more per head, but ignore that we pay for it, and more. 9.6% of public spending goes to Scotland, 9.9% of GDP comes from Scotland. Better Apart again.

I had a few discussions over Christmas about independence, we were staying with the inlaws and my FiL is heavily involved with the SNP so bangs the drum whenever he can. One of the things he mentioned time and time again was Scotlands higher GDP per capita. I’m no economist, so could be very wrong about this but my understanding is that the majority of Scottish industry is owned by companies registered ‘abroad’ (circa 60% with up to 80% of ‘large’ companies AFAIK) so whilst the profits from these companies are included in the GDP figures, they wouldn’t be included in the GNP because the money doesn’t stay in Scotland – none of the SNP people I spoke to had any real insight into how this would affect the balance sheet, if I was in a position to vote I would want some idea of the affect.

Scotland's desire to use sterling requires approval.

But just because you use a currency it doesn't mean you get a say in its management. But for a new small country, maybe that's no bad thing.

Has anyone worked out what happens to free university places yet? Presumably if Scotland becomes independent and joins the EU then students from the rest of the UK will all be eligible for free places, as EU students are currently? Would almost certainly lead to a huge rush for university places in Scotland, and as there is apparently no legal method to discriminate by country within the EU, then Scottish universities would be even more full than usual of English students.

I think the debt should be divided up based on the proportion of land area each resulting country will have.

Land is a fixed asset and they don't make it any more so it would make sense to agree a debt of £N/hectare and then just apportion it as required.

If Scotland does stay will we get Alex again pushing for another referendum in a few years?

Surely the Braveheart DVD is now £2.99 in Petrol station bargain bins?

pleaderwilliams. I think that you have opened the other can of worms. Will Scotland be part of the EU if it leaves the UK.

NW (I as teasing a bit) but thanks for the detail (it is an interesting debate as are each of the methods for slicing the pie). As you will be aware, do the maths starting in the 1990s and the result doesn't look so good, does it? It's fair that you start at some point and valid to do so when the data makes sense, but not "as" fair IMO to draw hard and fast conclusions when a different starting point makes such a difference. Most studies start at the same point for you argument, but that doesn't mean you should accept the conclusion without questioning the basis on which it is made.

Duckman, it wasn't my understanding that the document was deliberately "vague". On the contrary, the launch made out that it was authoritative, detailed etc but it was immediately obvious that it was full of errors, inconsistencies and basic lies (freedoms from nukes at the start, the truth 60-70 pages or so later).

"My lot" - there is no my lot. This is a Scottish vote. My concern stems from (1) if as a result of being caught BSing about things like the currency and threatening technical default then it becomes an issue for the RUK, hence the treasury statement yesterday and (2) as a student of economics and politics/foreign affairs I expect that salmond would have proper answers to key questions given the enormous amount of time that he has to work on them. But then again, secretly, he wants devo-max not full independence and the book of dreams makes it perfectly clear why.

Kona - do you want independence to manage your economic affairs or not? It's a basic question, indeed the very heart of the debate.

Most English I've spoken to about this just say well if they want independence why don't they just get on with it?

So why can't we?

You can, but there's a slight spanner in the works - most Scottish people don't want it.

http://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/3310/Support-for-Scottish-independence-goes-up-in-latest-Ipsos-MORISTV-News-poll.aspx

Pleaaderwilliams - as I've already pointed out, Scotland's University sector will be thoroughly torpedoed by independence, there won't be any university places worth having (free or otherwise), so it is a bit of a moot point.

And from that Grum,.....

The White Paper itself appears to have had a marginal effect on voters’ views.

Which supports my point (from months ago) that the Scots are too canny to fall for BS. Salmond should not insult their intelligence. Independence is too important a step for him to get away with half-backed concepts and deceit.

pleaderwilliams. I think that you have opened the other can of worms. Will Scotland be part of the EU if it leaves the UK.

Wee Jimmy Crankie says yes - Spain says no.

And of course the discussion over Sterling is theoretical, as if they want to join the EU, Scotland may yet be forced to adopt the Euro.

Duckman, it wasn't my understanding that the document was deliberately "vague". On the contrary, the launch made out that it was authoritative, detailed etc but it was immediately obvious that it was full of errors, inconsistencies and basic lies (freedoms from nukes at the start, the truth 60-70 pages or so later).

It's a passionate debate but really the yes campaign has no chance at this point in time. For Salmond, it has to be about playing the long game and securing an acceptable margin of defeat. If there is a strong minority no vote, he gets to keep it on the agenda and go for round 2 at some point in the future, having learnt from his mistakes.

For all his claimed virtues as a politician, it seems he lacks the most important one at the most critical time in his career - being lucky. The timing of the independence campaign is very bad wrt the economic climate and things might have been different a few years back. As it is he risks a walloping that might completely sink the issue for generations.

Shackleton - Member

as I've already pointed out, Scotland's University sector will be thoroughly torpedoed by independence, there won't be any university places worth having (free or otherwise), so it is a bit of a moot point.

Er... Trying to think of a better way to put this than "cobblers" but really, nobody believes this is the case except possibly you, and even then I'm not sure. (for the record, you haven't "pointed it out" or tried to explain your argument at all- maybe it's easier to just pretend you have, than it is to attempt the impossible?)

pleaderwilliams - Member

Has anyone worked out what happens to free university places yet? Presumably if Scotland becomes independent and joins the EU then students from the rest of the UK will all be eligible for free places, as EU students are currently?

There are a couple of possible outcomes here within the EU- the current legal advice is that there is an EU get-out clause whereby we can continue to fund based on residency as to do otherwise would endanger provision of the service provided. But that would have to be settled firmly first so there's an alternative to achieve the same result.

Plan B is actually simpler, you put a price tag on the course but make it free at the point of "sale" via government funded scholarships. All the systems are already in place to do this, it's essentially just a case of wording.

But either way, not a concern. (the latter position actually opens the way to charging EU students so could be benificial) That's the main reason there's so little discussion on the subject- Some uncertainty on the method to be used which people try to stir into concern, but no doubt as to the result.

teamhurtmore - Member

As you will be aware, do the maths starting in the 1990s and the result doesn't look so good, does it?

Yep, as ever it is possible to manipulate the numbers to give a false impression but not without rendering the whole concept meaningless.

But still, whether we use the fairest approach proposed or the least fair approach proposed, we're still better off than we are today.

irelanst - Member

One of the things he mentioned time and time again was Scotlands higher GDP per capita. I’m no economist, so could be very wrong about this but my understanding is that the majority of Scottish industry is owned by companies registered ‘abroad’ (circa 60% with up to 80% of ‘large’ companies AFAIK) so whilst the profits from these companies are included in the GDP figures, they wouldn’t be included in the GNP because the money doesn’t stay in Scotland

I don't have numbers for that but it's certainly plausible (and these days is the case for many countries) Both figures are useful but GDP is the best tool for assessing the strength of a country's economy. The multinational age innit, where a country's based becomes less important than the affect they have locally.

But still, whether we use the fairest approach proposed or the least fair approach proposed, we're still better off than we are today.

You say that as if it's a fact rather than an opinion.

Absolutely Grum, based on the numbers not opinion- even if we take a population-based percentage of the national debt (the worst option for Scotland that anyone has proposed), we come away with a better debt to GDP ratio than we have now (the standard metric)

So while the exact amount of national debt is yet to be decided, the worst case scenario presented is still better than the current scenario. I know I didn't say FACT but it totally is.

so my land area (the main asset of any country, surely, as population is 'mobile') division of debts is a non-starter?