No Voters - what say you?

[Fide]

Just now, pandarilla said:

 

 

Ok the share of the debt then. I'm pretty certain an independent Scotland will be running a deficit though - your article doesn't say it won't...

 

Any deficit would have to be negotiated.  As part of those negotiations, we would, naturally, be entitled to an equivalent share of assets.
Virtually every nation on Earth runs a deficit.

Stripping it right down to the bare bones, do you think Scotland would be an economically viable independent country? Or do you believe that, uniquely, we would be unable to survive on our own? Genuine question.

 

[pandarilla]

Any deficit would have to be negotiated.  As part of those negotiations, we would, naturally, be entitled to an equivalent share of assets.
Virtually every nation on Earth runs a deficit.
Stripping it right down to the bare bones, do you think Scotland would be an economically viable independent country? Or do you believe that, uniquely, we would be unable to survive on our own? Genuine question.
 

I'm a very committed yes voter fide, and I definitely think we could run our affairs much better, and in a much more progressive and sensible manner.

But I'm also a realist. Things could be very difficult in the short term. I'm OK with that but let's not pretend these are not legitimate concerns.

I know all countries run deficits. But the current economic situation for the UK is hellish. We simply can't walk away from all that without some difficult consequences.

[dogmc]

Ok the share of the debt then. I'm pretty certain an independent Scotland will be running a deficit though - your article doesn't say it won't...

Almost all countries do. Its not an issue really given our export strength. The real issue is how much of this deficit is actually ours n how much is due to dodgy Westminster figures. Not having to spend billions on hs2 &3, London underground and sewerage upgrades, repairs to Buckingham palace n Westminster and trident would immediately be a huge boost to our economy. Ireland seems to be coping well now it isnt financing londons vanity projects.

[pandarilla]

Almost all countries do. Its not an issue really given our export strength. The real issue is how much of this deficit is actually ours n how much is due to dodgy Westminster figures. Not having to spend billions on hs2 &3, London underground and sewerage upgrades, repairs to Buckingham palace n Westminster and trident would immediately be a huge boost to our economy. Ireland seems to be coping well now it isnt financing londons vanity projects.

Do you honestly think we'll gain in the short term?

[dogmc]

Do you honestly think we'll gain in the short term?

Short term it will clearly be difficult but long term certainly. Assuming we go indy prior to brexit....ive no doubt eu would be a useful safety net. The Czech n slovaks managed to split amicably enough. Reality is that once politicians stop blustering businesses will carry on doing business. Its tge way if the world. If we didnt have a vibrant economic output the big 3 Westminster parties wouldn't be panicking every time indy was mentioned.

[Fide]

18 minutes ago, pandarilla said:

 

 

I'm a very committed yes voter fide, and I definitely think we could run our affairs much better, and in a much more progressive and sensible manner.

But I'm also a realist. Things could be very difficult in the short term. I'm OK with that but let's not pretend these are not legitimate concerns.

I know all countries run deficits. But the current economic situation for the UK is hellish. We simply can't walk away from all that without some difficult consequences.

 

There may very well be short term challenges.  I truly believe that such challenges can be overcome and we will become a successful, thriving small country.

I find your last two sentences a little baffling if I'm honest.  As I said earlier, negotiations will take place over any incurred debt, which will also involve incurred assets.

All nations run a deficit.  Not really sure what point you're trying to make.

[BallochSonsFan]

30 minutes ago, Fide said:

Any deficit would have to be negotiated.  As part of those negotiations, we would, naturally, be entitled to an equivalent share of assets.
Virtually every nation on Earth runs a deficit.

Stripping it right down to the bare bones, do you think Scotland would be an economically viable independent country? Or do you believe that, uniquely, we would be unable to survive on our own? Genuine question.

 

No Fide, it wouldn't.

Any share of debt would be negotiated.

Deficit would be solely in the control of an iScotland government as it's the gap between what it takes in tax and what it spends. The choice would be to increase the tax take or cut spending as a means of controlling the deficit between tax income and public spending.

How it would afford to cover that deficit would also be reliant on any number of issues including what currency iScotland would use, who the lender of last resort would be, what international credit rating iScotland would have and whether or not the international finance community would have any confidence in iScotland's ability to service it's debt due to it's deficit.

[pandarilla]

No Fide, it wouldn't.
Any share of debt would be negotiated.
Deficit would be solely in the control of an iScotland government as it's the gap between what it takes in tax and what it spends. The choice would be to increase the tax take or cut spending as a means of controlling the deficit between tax income and public spending.
How it would afford to cover that deficit would also be reliant on any number of issues including what currency iScotland would use, who the lender of last resort would be, what international credit rating iScotland would have and whether or not the international finance community would have any confidence in iScotland's ability to service it's debt due to it's deficit.

Those last points are the crucial bits. There are huge challenges, and many of them will be entirely outwith our control.

I honestly believe we can get over them but down playing the difficulties isn't helpful. It makes us disingenuous.

[NotThePars]

Anyone who has a problem with "their kin" suddenly becoming foreigners is implicitly suggesting that they have a problem with foreigners. It really is that simple. My da's not going to suddenly mean less to me once political control moves from London to Edinburgh. What a fucking backwards thing to believe.

[pandarilla]

Anyone who has a problem with "their kin" suddenly becoming foreigners is implicitly suggesting that they have a problem with foreigners. It really is that simple. My da's not going to suddenly mean less to me once political control moves from London to Edinburgh. What a fucking backwards thing to believe.

It's part of the feeling of britishness. Some people feel it. I don't, but some people do.

[NotThePars]

 

It's part of the feeling of britishness. Some people feel it. I don't, but some people do.

 

 

That doesn't make it valid. I'm not going to help validate people's inherent xenophobia or throw foreign nationals under the bus to pander to British xenophobes who worry about this sort of guff.

 

If (I'm joking there is no if) a part of the feeling of Britishness is an innate dislike of foreignness then I hope we spend this campaign denouncing it rather than pandering to it. It's not acceptable in the 21st century.

[GTG_03]

The trade argument is fair enough but there is absolutely no way the UK would cease trading with scotland.

The 'feeling british' is garbage. Usually heard from ex forces types with a sense of superiority over people from other countries.

The vast majority of 'foreigners' who come to this country come here to make a new life for themselves and contribute to the economy and to our way of life.

Nicola sturgeon deserves enormous credit for tackling this issue head on at the party conference. A brave move as a third of SNP voters voted to leave. She is the only politician in the UK to stand up and say that foreign nationals are welcome in scotland. Whilst labour tie themselves in knots over the immigration question and haemorrhage votes the SNP continue to present a positive, welcoming message.

The saddest thing is the Tories and labour will use this to scream that all these bad foreigners will come here and steal our jobs etc.

I'd much rather live in nicola sturgeons vision of an independent Scotland than theresa mays/nigel farages brexit Britain.

[DrewDon]

Although I personally do not identify as such, people are absolutely allowed to feel British - and I understand that many Scots do so. It is a bit nonsensical when the 'Proud to be British!'/'They want to make your family foreigners!' types attack independence supporters for being 'nationalists obsessed with divisive identity politics', or something, though. Funny, but nonsensical.

[DeeTillEhDeh]

 I wasnt seeking your approval TBH.

[parahandy1]

2 hours ago, dogmc said:

How the heck is ruk gonna run on a daily basis if it wont trade with either Scotland or the eu?? Do the yoons understand trade is generally a two way thing? Why on earth would any politician stand up in Westminster and try to make life more difficult for ruk businesses ?

I don't believe for one second that Scotland & rUK wont trade, just that it will have to be conducted under potentially very different trade arrangements than we have now. Agreeing a zero rate of cross border tax is the easy bit, the hard bit is the thousands of regulations we share, and the harmonization of tax regimes that make agreeing that zero rate fair and practical for both sides. Difficulties start to creep in as soon as we get divergence, and it is unusual for those difficulties to reduce costs or improve cross border trading. For example we currently have a single regulator for the telecoms sector with a single set of regulations, a single point of authority for registration, appeals and so on. An independent Scotland would quite rightly establish it's own regulator. Providers who want to continue to operate in both markets will probably have to register and pay both authorities, and it is unclear what sort of aspirations any new regulator would have so it's not possible to asses the degree of divergence that would result. Ofcom may not be ideal but I like the fact that my fibre circuits that run north south are governed by a single set of rules and although I hate all tax at least it is a unified tax regime that doesn't favour me or my competitors.

We have always seen differences between the way England/Wales and Scotland treat non-domestic rates. I don't mean the baseline tax rate I mean the way the valuations offices value things. They follow different practice notes, meaning there are certain types of opportunities that cost 4 times more for us in one region than the other. That sucks. I order all my opportunities by projected rate of return best to worst and start at the top of the list till I run out of cash. I invest far less in one region than the other because it costs way more to operate there. I would rather hassle my MP to eliminate those differences (obviously adopting for the cheaper tax model) than separate and lose the ability to lobby them.

 

 

[Fide]

17 minutes ago, parahandy1 said:

I don't believe for one second that Scotland & rUK wont trade.

 

That's all you had to say.

The rest of your post are things that can and will be worked out.  There is no way that Scotland and rUK will be vastly different, trade wise, than they are at present.  It simply means Scotland gets to control her own trade.

[parahandy1]

4 hours ago, Fide said:

There is nothing wrong with foreigners and the deficit thing isn't real.

HTH.

That's not what the Deloitte's paper said, their take on it was that the deficit consists of what Holyrood spends plus a population based proportion of the Westminster spending, but that Scotland would not be obliged to continue with Westminster spending plans and therefore could reduce the deficit by changing their budget. The associated Commonweal study includes suggestions on where those savings may come. Scotland share of defence spending is 3Bn of which Trident is 5-6% about 160m. The study projected defence savings of 1.1Bn so there's still a lot of cut-backs/efficiencies to find beyond canning trident.

[parahandy1]

29 minutes ago, Fide said:

That's all you had to say.

The rest of your post are things that can and will be worked out.  There is no way that Scotland and rUK will be vastly different, trade wise, than they are at present.  It simply means Scotland gets to control her own trade.

You are absolutely right that all those things can and will be worked out, and common sense ought to prevail. I just don't believe there will be a zero cost to businesses during or after that "working it out" . As for Scotland controlling her own trade that's not true, Scotland would control 100% of the domestic trade but we'd only be able to control our negotiating position on the rest.

[Fide]

7 minutes ago, parahandy1 said:

That's not what the Deloitte's paper said, their take on it was that the deficit consists of what Holyrood spends plus a population based proportion of the Westminster spending, but that Scotland would not be obliged to continue with Westminster spending plans and therefore could reduce the deficit by changing their budget. The associated Commonweal study includes suggestions on where those savings may come. Scotland share of defence spending is 3Bn of which Trident is 5-6% about 160m. The study projected defence savings of 1.1Bn so there's still a lot of cut-backs/efficiencies to find beyond canning trident.

Deloitte's paper, specifically the highlighted section, states that GERS figures are a measure of Scotland's finances as a part of the UK, I.e. under Westminster control.

GERS does not model for an iScotland as it is not designed to do so.  Anyone pointing to GERS figures as a way of pointing out any financial difficulties in relation to Scotland are just highlighting how badly our country's finances have been managed.

Beyond Trident there are of course savings to be made.  The below isn't a finite list but does give you an idea:

Plus what we can bring in. Again, not a finite list:

[parahandy1]

19 minutes ago, Fide said:

"Olympics 9Bn"

 

Is that London 2012 or some future sports UK funding?

You are mixing debt and deficit numbers and trying to offset annual budgets with whole of life project costs. 32 years of WM refurb works out at 20m annually for Scotland although in fairness they should get it done in a fraction of that time. The Hinkley C costs are recovered from bill payers through the wholesale price agreement. London sewers are being funded about 50/50 by bill payers and private investment companies, with the govt/tax payer only being asked to act as insurer/backstop on cost overruns.

HS2 - I would like to see that come all the way up here and not just stop in Leeds, I am guessing that might double the construction bill.