Scottish Independence

[Ads]

Brown could have just called Salmond a bigot and shortened the whole thing.

Edited September 17, 2014 by Ads

[MakemineVanilla]

 

The loss of 95% of oil revenues to Scotland would mean that UK taxes would have to be increased or further cuts made.

Hold on.

Haven't the No people been arguing that the Scots would either have to cut more deeply or put up taxes in order to keep the same level of public spending in light of a Yes vote?

If the argument is also that the same applies for the rest of the UK then, ceteris paribus, something does not add up.

 

 

It is amazingly difficult to actually find out what Scotland's net contribution to UK revenues is.

 

The Flanders woman at the BBC excludes oil revenue, which seems perverse, and arrives at a net subsidy for Scotland from the rest.

 

If the Kemp and Stephen study quoted earlier is correct and that 95% of North Sea oil is in Scottish waters, then it would seem ridiculous to exclude that, when assessing the viability of the project.

 

I've heard some Yes voters complaining about the BBC and I can understand why now.

 

The last figure I read stated that Scotland has contributed a net £20bn in revenues since 1980.

 

As ever, the media are as shamefully unhelpful, just as they are when it comes to other issues.

[blandy]

I don't think the numbers are actually known, to be honest. I also don't think anyone wants to admit as much - "we don't know" doesn't look good for newspapers, telly news or politicals in an election.

Any figures will be an approximation based on assumptions and generalisations. And about as trustworthy as the rest of the bull that's been spouted by both sides. Actual solid information and answers to questions and requests for data and evidence have been almost entirely absent.

That said the media hasn't been particularly fair sided overall - it seems more weighted to the No than the Yes.

[DanishVillan]

 

 

The loss of 95% of oil revenues to Scotland would mean that UK taxes would have to be increased or further cuts made.

Hold on.

Haven't the No people been arguing that the Scots would either have to cut more deeply or put up taxes in order to keep the same level of public spending in light of a Yes vote?

If the argument is also that the same applies for the rest of the UK then, ceteris paribus, something does not add up.

 

 

It is amazingly difficult to actually find out what Scotland's net contribution to UK revenues is.

 

The Flanders woman at the BBC excludes oil revenue, which seems perverse, and arrives at a net subsidy for Scotland from the rest.

 

If the Kemp and Stephen study quoted earlier is correct and that 95% of North Sea oil is in Scottish waters, then it would seem ridiculous to exclude that, when assessing the viability of the project.

 

I've heard some Yes voters complaining about the BBC and I can understand why now.

 

The last figure I read stated that Scotland has contributed a net £20bn in revenues since 1980.

 

As ever, the media are as shamefully unhelpful, just as they are when it comes to other issues.

 

Not helpful?

They go out of their way to portrait this as a win-lose scenario with rUK the winner and Scotland the loser.

They report of bookies already paying out if you had put a bet on No. Nice stunt.

This would be a landslide, were it not for the media.

[bickster]

This would be a landslide, were it not for the media.

Actually it would have been a landslide if the No campaign had said absolutely nothing

I'm thinking the No vote will win by a margin of 10-15% on the day. Its very easy to say I'm voting yes when asked in public, in fact many are under the impression they might just get lynched if they say anything else such is the noise and antagonism out of the YES supporters but when it comes down to it a lot of those soft yes's will turn into No votes. Scotland will do a Quebec, look over the precipice of independence on the day of the poll and declare they suddenly don't like the idea of the fall.

[leviramsey]

The loss of 95% of oil revenues to Scotland would mean that UK taxes would have to be increased or further cuts made.

Hold on.

Haven't the No people been arguing that the Scots would either have to cut more deeply or put up taxes in order to keep the same level of public spending in light of a Yes vote?

If the argument is also that the same applies for the rest of the UK then, ceteris paribus, something does not add up.

It is amazingly difficult to actually find out what Scotland's net contribution to UK revenues is.

The Flanders woman at the BBC excludes oil revenue, which seems perverse, and arrives at a net subsidy for Scotland from the rest.

If the Kemp and Stephen study quoted earlier is correct and that 95% of North Sea oil is in Scottish waters, then it would seem ridiculous to exclude that, when assessing the viability of the project.

I've heard some Yes voters complaining about the BBC and I can understand why now.

The last figure I read stated that Scotland has contributed a net £20bn in revenues since 1980.

As ever, the media are as shamefully unhelpful, just as they are when it comes to other issues.

The Scottish government's own figures, including oil, arrive at a 12.4 billion pound deficit for Scotland.

[DanishVillan]

 

This would be a landslide, were it not for the media.

Actually it would have been a landslide if the No campaign had said absolutely nothing

 

The No campaign is a clear part in the election with a clear and known goal. Don´t know what they have to do with the media coverage.

[turnbull]

 

I don't follow politics at all but how would the Scots getting their independence affect me, a 26-year old white male from the suburbs of central England?

 

What it means is Old Testament, real wrath-of-God type stuff! Fire and brimstone coming down from the sky! Rivers and seas boiling! Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes! The dead rising from the grave! Human sacrifice! Dogs and cats, living together! Mass hysteria!

 

Worse than this, the price of Scotch will go up!

[bickster]

If I remember correctly there has only been one year since oil first landed in the seventies that Scotland hasn't been in deficit and that was the year prior to "The Great Depression" ™

[tonyh29]

 

Anyone see Gordon Brown's speech? Pulled a bit of a worldy there.

 

 

Seen it , life in the old timer yet.

 

Very good speech and has the passion the NO campaign has sadly lacked.

 

 

well it was good in the sense that he didn't call anyone a bigot after he finished 

[bickster]

This would be a landslide, were it not for the media.

Actually it would have been a landslide if the No campaign had said absolutely nothing

The No campaign is a clear part in the election with a clear and known goal. Don´t know what they have to do with the media coverage.

My point was that the No campaign would have been better off saying absolutely nothing instead of sending up an entourage of dickheads that no one likes, to do exactly what no one likes about them. The No campaign has possibly been the worst run political campaign ever and they'll still in all likelihood win. More people have decided to vote Yes because of how badly patronising the No campaign has been, rather than have their opinions swayed by actual political debate.

I'm not so sure the media has had that much sway in this election other than to carry the messages of the two sides, most people these days are perfectly capable of digesting the facts of the events and ignoring the particular media outlet's bias.

[bickster]

Anyone see Gordon Brown's speech? Pulled a bit of a worldy there.

 

 

Seen it , life in the old timer yet.

 

Very good speech and has the passion the NO campaign has sadly lacked.

 

well it was good in the sense that he didn't call anyone a bigot after he finished 

Which would have been very easy to do considering Alex Salmond is captain of the other team

[Ads]

So, using that £12 billion figure and taking off the £1500 per head of population, Scotland would find themself with a deficit of getting on for £20 billion, while in the process cut 6500 jobs at Faslane and lose any hope of future defence contracts from the Royal Navy, while taking on a debt around 100% of GDP, while hitching their waggon to a currency they have no control of.

 

Investors would surely get a little twitchy?

[bickster]

You'd think so Ads but try explaining that to a staunch separatist. It goes in one ear and gets lost in translation before it his the brain

[tonyh29]

You'd think so Ads but try explaining that to a staunch separatist. It goes in one ear and gets lost in translation before it his the brain

 

indeed

[Xann]

Might unblock my Scottish mates on Facebook next week.

 

... many are under the impression they might just get lynched if they say anything else such is the noise and antagonism out of the YES supporters but when it comes down to it a lot of those soft yes's will turn into No votes...

 

Aye, the vociferous hatred aimed at the publicly open 'No' voters should be a vote loser for 'Yes'.

 

Didn't think it was possible to hate anyone more than Morrissey, Ian Duncan Smith, Morrissey. Boris Johnson and Morrissey, but Salmond has trumped the lot - I despise the word removed.

[peterms]

 

 

 

The loss of 95% of oil revenues to Scotland would mean that UK taxes would have to be increased or further cuts made.

Hold on.

Haven't the No people been arguing that the Scots would either have to cut more deeply or put up taxes in order to keep the same level of public spending in light of a Yes vote?

If the argument is also that the same applies for the rest of the UK then, ceteris paribus, something does not add up.

It is amazingly difficult to actually find out what Scotland's net contribution to UK revenues is.

The Flanders woman at the BBC excludes oil revenue, which seems perverse, and arrives at a net subsidy for Scotland from the rest.

If the Kemp and Stephen study quoted earlier is correct and that 95% of North Sea oil is in Scottish waters, then it would seem ridiculous to exclude that, when assessing the viability of the project.

I've heard some Yes voters complaining about the BBC and I can understand why now.

The last figure I read stated that Scotland has contributed a net £20bn in revenues since 1980.

As ever, the media are as shamefully unhelpful, just as they are when it comes to other issues.

The Scottish government's own figures, including oil, arrive at a 12.4 billion pound deficit for Scotland.

 

 

Also see the recent report from the Institute for Fiscal Studies, which has tried to quantify the effects of independence.  I think it's this that the No campaign has been referencing.

 

A further point to make is that it's not a zero sum game where if Scotland becomes better off the rUK becomes worse off and vice versa.  If there are significant new costs like transaction costs from cross-border trade, currency costs, increased cost of borrowing and so on, those things could in theory make both parties worse off, if they exceed any gains from other things.

[tinker]

If the votes yes then then i reckon the pound will drop in value against the Euro, we will all be worse off, south and north of the border.

 

The oil is a major factor and must be the UK's biggest physical export and as the reserves drop it ain't gonna get any cheaper.

 

Just another thing Blair has to answer for, his ego was that big.

Edited September 17, 2014 by tinker

[snowychap]

So, using that £12 billion figure and taking off the £1500 per head of population...

Why would you do the second part?

[snowychap]

A further point to make is that it's not a zero sum game where if Scotland becomes better off the rUK becomes worse off and vice versa.

It is if you're (edit: not you, Peter, as you've clarified yourself but rather 'one is') talking in the way that Yes supporters and No supporters appear to have been (i.e. with the assumption that other things are equal).

If there are significant new costs like transaction costs from cross-border trade, currency costs, increased cost of borrowing and so on, those things could in theory make both parties worse off, if they exceed any gains from other things.

Those costs will be revenues to someone, won't they? Edited September 17, 2014 by snowychap