Scottish Independence

[Ads]

The second part is on the assumption that Scotland would maintain level of spending per head of population they are now in 2016. The. Barnett formular gives them approximately £1500.00 more to spend, so without UK tax providing that, it would have to be accounted for somewhere, hence the increase in deficit beyond the 12.4 billion.

[snowychap]

The second part is on the assumption that Scotland would maintain level of spending per head of population they are now in 2016. The. Barnett formular gives them approximately £1500.00 more to spend, so without UK tax providing that, it would have to be accounted for somewhere, hence the increase in deficit beyond the 12.4 billion.

I understood that the £1500 per capita related to the amounts under the Barnett formula convention: why would the Scottish government's revenue and expenditure statements (from which one would arrive at any official deficit or surplus spending figure) not already take that in to account? Edited September 17, 2014 by snowychap

[krisagg75]

just get the feeling it'll be a no vote tomorrow.as others have said before when you're in that booth and you're about to vote you'll vote for your job/finances and not for patriotism.cameron deserves to lose his job over the mess he's made of it though.

[MakemineVanilla]

The second part is on the assumption that Scotland would maintain level of spending per head of population they are now in 2016. The. Barnett formular gives them approximately £1500.00 more to spend, so without UK tax providing that, it would have to be accounted for somewhere, hence the increase in deficit beyond the 12.4 billion.

 

I've read from several different sources that the Barnett formula has long been a back door way of off-setting the revenues from oil, which go south.

 

There is a lot of guff about how Scotland has greater needs which justify the £1500 per person extra they get, but judging by the way they choose to spend that money, which is not actually going to the disadvantaged of Glasgow but on subsidising mostly middle-class university students and allowing old people in care to keep their houses, I suspect that it is probably just a tax rebate by another name.

[peterms]

 

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?

 

 

Banks, traders, bondholders.  Money leaching away from more productive uses.  Some will be respent in the economy, and some of the bondhlders may be UK or Scottish pension schemes, but I'd have thought the overall effect would be negative.

 

[snowychap]

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?

Banks, traders, bondholders.  Money leaching away from more productive uses.  Some will be respent in the economy, and some of the bondhlders may be UK or Scottish pension schemes, but I'd have thought the overall effect would be negative.

I get (and subscribe to) the productive use thing for (some of) those certain costs but would that really be the large part of any increased cross-border transaction costs?

What is the case for business that transact across the Eire/NI border, for example? (Genuine question as I have no idea)

May there even be reductions in diseconomies of scale, perhaps?

I don't have any of the answers to the questions I'm raising and I don't think either of the campaigns for or against independence do.

More worrying is that neither of the campaigns appear as though they could countenance the idea that they might be wrong.

[leviramsey]

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?

Not if those transaction costs result in a transaction which is otherwise beneficial to all parties not occurring.

[Nabby]

just get the feeling it'll be a no vote tomorrow.as others have said before when you're in that booth and you're about to vote you'll vote for your job/finances and not for patriotism.cameron deserves to lose his job over the mess he's made of it though.

Him and Miliband. Though I am unable to nominate able replacements for either ...

[blandy]

 

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.

 

I dunno, Bicks. You're right of course, about human nature in that situation, but I get the feeling (and it's only through the media etc. rather than directly,  but still ) that the Yes people have equally got a lot of folk kind of revved up with the anti-westminster thing (code for anti Tory, anti London, anti Establishment) to give someone a kicking. So if people go int the voting room with that "kick them" feeling, then it may not turn out like you think.

 

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.

 

Agree about the plums they sent up. Thing is though the campaign has been done on two different kind of bases - the No has been about dry money and economic stuff, which most or many people are a) sick of over the past 6 years or so and b.) don't really understand.

Whereas the Yes people have based it on a clearer, easier to grasp, basis, which is "we should be able to decide our own future" and "no more tories". These are obvious good points and haven't been counteracted by the No people, because they can't be, really. They, at the last minute, in the last week came up with vague promises of Devo max, which are about as credible as most of the SNP stuff - just offering wish fulfilment with not much thought for the tortuous practicalities.

 

The discussion seems to have been won by the Yes people, not so much because they have the most tenable argument, or are supported by facts and analysis, but because it's been conducted on their territory, in both senses of the word. Even the basic question "Should Scotchland be an independent country" (Yes or no) (sorry donnie) is one which is intuitively one to which people would say yes.

 

Had the question been "should Scotland remain part of the UK" again the intuitive answer is more likely to be Yes, and the debate would be more likely phrased around the benefits of shared embassies, currency, and all the rest.

 

So I think these seemingly trivial factors are all weighted in the Yes camp's favour and suspect it could be really really close, if not a sneaky Yes win.

[snowychap]

Not if those transaction costs result in a transaction which is otherwise beneficial to all parties not occurring.

Indeed - so if the benefit (or most of it) is captured by a third party (e.g. where Peter went with non UK/Scot bondholders)?

Otherwise, though (and I get that I'm slightly taking it off topic in a strict sense), increased transaction costs (or some extra inefficiencies) can well mean an increase in overall output, no?

(sorry donnie)

Edited September 17, 2014 by snowychap

[chrisp65]

So apparently the Spanish PM in answer to a question in the Spanish Parliament has said that if a democratic vote in Scotland lead to independence, then Spain wouldn't stand in their way if they wanted to apply for EU membership.

 

Now that is a million miles from auto membership the next Tuesday after independence. But it's also a million miles from the presumption of a veto spouted by the NO campaign repeatedly, on Spain's behalf.

 

Apparently, Spain are more interested in fishing rights and maximised trade than some people presumed.

[tonyh29]

So apparently the Spanish PM in answer to a question in the Spanish Parliament has said that if a democratic vote in Scotland lead to independence, then Spain wouldn't stand in their way if they wanted to apply for EU membership.

Now that is a million miles from auto membership the next Tuesday after independence. But it's also a million miles from the presumption of a veto spouted by the NO campaign repeatedly, on Spain's behalf.

Apparently, Spain are more interested in fishing rights and maximised trade than some people presumed.

He said they would still have to apply where as I'm given to believe Salmond said they would be straight in it ( on Andy Marr show )

[chrisp65]

 

So apparently the Spanish PM in answer to a question in the Spanish Parliament has said that if a democratic vote in Scotland lead to independence, then Spain wouldn't stand in their way if they wanted to apply for EU membership.

Now that is a million miles from auto membership the next Tuesday after independence. But it's also a million miles from the presumption of a veto spouted by the NO campaign repeatedly, on Spain's behalf.

Apparently, Spain are more interested in fishing rights and maximised trade than some people presumed.

He said they would still have to apply where as I'm given to believe Salmond said they would be straight in it ( on Andy Marr show )

 

 

Yep, he said they'd have to apply and Spain wouldn't stand in the way, if they fulfil the criteria then they are in. That's a big if, but it's not **** off jock. The NO campaign have presumed Spain would veto, the YES campaign have presumed automatic entry. The truth, it would appear, was somewhere between the two incorrect claims - fairly typical of all politics unfortunately.

 

In similar style, it would appear Ed Milliband has promised Welsh Labour he'll be scrapping the Barnett formula and promised Scotland he'll be retaining and strengthening it. Politician in short term lies hoping nobody notices shocker! The fact that it was Welsh Labour that complained to the media about this, er, 'error' shows the esteem Ed is held in amongst his own.

[bickster]

iirc correctly he also said they'd have to join the euro and all the other hoops that need jumping through for new membership. The quickest a country has come through that is 5 years and Scotland with no central bank would be a hell of a lot longer than 5 years

The Spain thing was always about immediate membership I think. Ten years down the line is different

[Nabby]

http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1sasua6

 

Quick translation of http://www.elmundo.es/espana/2014/09/17/5419360e22601d41218b456c.html

Rajoy: the referendum processes of Catalonia and Scotland are 'a torpedo to the waterline of the EU'

The Prime Minister, Mariano Rajoy, today disavowed processes such as tomorrow's referendum in Scotland and, without mentioning it, holding any plebiscite on independence such as the one that Artur Mas, president of the Catalonian regional government, would like to hold.

Rajoy assured that 'everyone in Europe thinks that these processes are enormously negative because they worsen the economic recession and increase poverty for everyone'. A referendum like that in Scotland is 'a torpedo to the waterline of European integration', said the head of the Executive, because 'Europe came together to join states together, not to break them apart'.

The PM was questioned during the government's parliamentary time by the Basque Nationalist Party's spokeperson, Aitor Esteban, who asked if the Spanish government would 'facilitate the accession' of Scotland to the EU.

The PM said, on the other hand, that it was plainly obvious and that the both the EU's treaties and the president of the European Commission said that 'if a part of one State separates itself from that state, it becomes a third party with regard to the EU'. As a result, it would lose the single currency, the protection of the ECB and all the advantages of belonging to Europe.

Rajoy reminded the Basque Nationalist Party and Convergence & Union that such a region could then ask to join the EU, a process that took Spain eight years and 'much longer for Croatia', as well as needing 'unanimous agreement from the 28 EU member states'.

Ultimately, the independence processes would be 'bad for the region, bad for the state and bad for the EU'; as such, 'there would be very little support for any such moves', he concluded.

After Rajoy, Pere Macias of CiU questioned the Deputy PM, Soraya Saenz de Santamaria, regarding the Catalan process. She reinforced that the right of self-determination was not recognized by the Spanish constitution, or by practically any other constitution. She added that 'democracy is voting, but also respecting that which has been voted for'. 'What you're asking for', she argued, 'is against the Constitution and also against your Statute of Autonomy'.

Santamaria said this after Macias had invited her to 'not fear the ballot boxes, to debate and to reason' as, in his opinion, the British PM, David Cameron, had done in offering 'a substantial improvement to Scottish autonomy'. 'His way is to convince while yours is to threaten'. The Catalan deputy was referring to the Foreign Secretary, Jose Manuel Garcia-Margello, who said yesterday that the Government would use 'all legal means', including article 155 of the Constitution, to prevent an referendum on Catalan independence.

Margallo made clear, when asked by Amaiur [basque nationalist left party] that, from his point of view, there weren't similarities between Scotland and Catalonia. The Scottish referendum had been carried out 'in accordance with the law', a situation that did not exist in the Spanish case. In any case, the foreign secretary said that 'Scottish secession would be bad for them, bad for Spain and bad for the EU'.

 

 

[kidlewis]

A separate currency would be unsecure and would have to be secured, the only options are the European Bank or the Bank of England. There was a pretty decent video doing the rounds online by a Scottish Councillor. Presumably in the No Camp in a formal capacity however he was an economist and did have some very strong arguments which if backed up by decent statistics (i.e. not ones jiggered around to support an argument) then it leads me to believe an independent Scotland would HAVE to join the Euro if they vote yes. 

 

Without that their currency wouldn't be as "safe" as the Pound or Euro meaning higher borrowing costs would it not?

 

Also by ONS own figures Scotlands public sector employment percentage is over 22% over 4% higher than the rest of the UK overall. Whilst some areas of Scotland are above and below the UK average it's worth noting that there would be a significant shift of public sector related jobs (mainly defence) which would need to move south of the border. 

 

SNP don't want trident, nuclear submarines or the two aircraft carriers currently being built in Scotland. I read that the base at Clyde alone has over 4,000 jobs related to those projects with the capacity for work and jobs to move that figure to 6,500. These projects WILL and ARE going ahead. Coalition have already stated the cost of building them is cheaper than cancelling them. So where will these jobs need to go? to the remainder of the UK. I am not sure where but a political tick in the box would be somewhere in the North East. 

 

Now 6,500 job on their own is pretty small fry but given the fact Scotland are slightly more reliant on public sector jobs than the rest of the UK and that there will be quite a few skilled jobs disappearing they will have to ensure any defence savings would be pumped into welfare and retraining and job creation (infrastructure maybe?). 

 

Salmond saying defence savings could just move over to the NHS budget is obviously complete nonsense, unless he can convince those Clyde unemployed that it's the way forward. 

[HanoiVillan]

Which is exactly what you'd expect Rajoy to say. 

 

Not only do I think that Spain will extract a high price for (eventually) agreeing not to veto Scottish membership, I doubt Germany will allow independent Scotland to accede without signing up to the road-map to the Euro that every other accession state has to agree to. Vote yes for the euro!

[Davkaus]

The country will fall into chaos and you will lose your penis overnight.

 

 

Will it hurt? Because if not I might be ok with that, my penis causes me nothing but trouble.

[leviramsey]

The country will fall into chaos and you will lose your penis overnight.

 

 

Will it hurt? Because if not I might be ok with that, my penis causes me nothing but trouble.

You need a detachable penis.

[PaulC]

A prosthetic Penis