An Independent Scotland?

jakeblu said:
Is it the nationalists view that no currency union means no share of the national debt to Scotland? Or have I read that statement wrong. Seriously if you don't take your share of the debt I fancy any borrowing you need to do will be fraught with difficulties.
Click to expand...
Firstly Steve, the Scottish Parliament has never suggested that it would not take it's share of the UK debt. By contrast, the UK government has said that it will assume total control of the debt. As for borrowing in an independent Scotland, S&P have stated that iScotland would have a AAA rating even without oil in its economy! Furthermore, iScotland does not exist (yet) and has no debt agreement with anyone. It could not renege on debt as legally, it doesn't have any. The debt belongs to the UK and only the UK. If the UK was to be the successor state then the debt lies with them alone. There is no 'joint and several liability' for iScoltand, aside from the goodwill already offered to the UK by the Scottish Parliament which has effectively been turned-down by Westminster. International lenders will not be interested in what's transpired. They will only want to see a AAA rating and the chance of making more money. Nobody can suggest a poor track record by a newly independent country which has never entered a financial agreement before.
 
Nicola sturgeon stated that Scotland would not take its share of the debt in February.

Once again you seem to want to pick and choose which bits suit you as in " we didn't exist before so we can't have any debt". The economic downturn affected all of the UK and however you view the financial status of an independent Scotland compared to the rest of the UK it would not look quite as rosy if the Scottish government had to bailout RBS to the tune of 46 billion.

It would be reasonable to ask the question could scotland actually afford a repeat of 2009/2009 with regard to the banks.
 
Nicola stated that we could not be expected to take a share of debt in a currency we were prevented from using. Why try to blame her when Westminster had earlier said that they would take-on ALL the debt themselves?

Could Scotland afford to bail-out RBS? Yes, it could.

http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/bizforscotland-destroys-the-no-campaigns-bank-bail-out-lies/

Could an independent Scotland have afforded our contribution?

The answer is absolutely yes, according to the Harvard professor and international banking expert Andrew Hughes-Hallet, who said “the cost of Scotland’s contribution to the bank bail out as an independent country would have been roughly the same as it was as part of the UK – roughly 10%”.

Although we absolutely know this wouldn’t have been the case, even if we’d been left with the full bill of £65bn, we could have afforded it. Scotland after all has bailed the UK out to the tune of £89bn in the last 19 years alone. Had Scotland been an independent nation, we would have enjoyed a surplus of £68bn over the last 19 years. Instead we bailed the UK out to the tune of £83bn. That is our contribution to UK national debt interest that an independent Scotland would not have paid. And all of this ignores the question of whether a regulatory system with direct Scottish influence would have allowed RBS and HBOS to over-leverage their balance sheets or that Halifax is actually in Yorkshire!
 
FourRingCircus said:
It's hard to find evidence for something which has yet to transpire. There are plenty of economics experts out there who have already made this kind of assertion. Even the London based Financial Times has clearly stated that a currency union would be in the best interests of rUK. In fact, they say it would be more in the interest of rUK than it would be for iScotland.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/8bf832a8-b984-11e3-b74f-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2xj6OFbcr

However, if you need a link to someones thinking, rather than using your own common sense, there is probably little point.

Apart from transaction costs if there is no sharing of the pound, rUK ends up with another £130bn of debt, a 10% smaller economy from which to service it (never mind repay it), double the already chronic trade deficit and a massive (oil) hole in its reserves. Perhaps you should be telling me how you think a currency, even a relatively strong one, will survive that sort of onslaught without batting an eyelid? If a currency has any kind of trouble, interest rates go up - simples!
Click to expand...

This is an example of why you have been referred to as arrogant in this thread. Just because I have a view that is different to yours doesnt mean I'm wrong or stupid. Please don't talk down to me. I work for a large Investment company and probably have better access to economists than you do.

As to the debt, I think you've been listening to Salmond too much. The negotiations for that haven't even started - so I'm not sure how you think Scotland wont be taking any. Please remember that all the Yes vote enables is Scotland to negotiate terms for independance. These need to be approved by both parliaments, as set out in the white paper for an independant scotland. If you want to walk away withou any debt, you'll need westminster to agree to it.

Transaction costs of not sharing the pound? I think they'll affect scotland a lot more than RUK. The institute of directors seems to agree, as does the CBI.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...trade-with-Scotland-than-share-the-pound.html

Not taking the debt could cost each scottish household £5200

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...uld-cost-Scottish-households-5200-a-year.html



You seem to just state your thoughts as fact. They're not. They're thoughts just like everyone elses. Your constant anti english/ anti westminster/ anti anyone who disagrees with you in this thread are becoming clearer and clearer.
 
Last edited:
That's a surplus over 19 years John. RBS didn't need bailing out over 19 years it needed it quickly.

As for if Scotland had its own independent financial authority it wouldn't have got into that mess in the first place, well frankly, that's cobblers. What makes you think that a scottish government would be so far sighted to see the economic downturn coming and introduce legislation that would have limited the banks exposure to the vagaries of the world economy.

I find it strange that, when it suits, those in favour of independence will quote experts when it reinforces their beliefs but rubbish other experts who have a different view.

Better men than exist in the current Scottish parliament never saw it going tits up and there is nothing that would suggest Scotland would have been any different.

I am sure that Scotland will be,as it currently is, a great place to live if there is a yes vote but let's not get too carried away by suggesting that it will be the nirvana of economic and social brilliance and stand head and shoulders above the rest of the world. It's not that simple and never will be.

I'm not trying to be antagonistic here as I genuinely wish all scots the very best if its a yes vote and would want to keep close ties with an independent Scotland to try and benefit all of us.
 
Last edited:
barneyrubble said:
Just because I have a view that is different to yours doesnt mean I'm wrong or stupid. Please don't talk down to me. I work for a large Investment company and probably have better access to economists than you do.
Click to expand...
But my view is different so I'm wrong, stupid and arrogant into the bargain? As for talking down, I haven't bothered to try intimidation by telling you that I'm Chief Exec of a multi-national corporation. You have no idea how many economists I know, or what level of access I 'probably' have to them either.

I've never once stated that Scotland won't be taking debt, nor do I think that. Please don't put words into my mouth. I have merely suggested what could happen in 'negotiations' IF use of Sterling was not on the table. I firmly believe it will be. I've said all along that all the current 'talk' is simply that - talk, coupled with bluff and bluster. I'm as guilty as anyone when it comes to 'talk', but if myself and Hugh weren't 'talking', I doubt if the thread would move at all. We're simply trying to explain the mindset which many people seem hell-bent on ignoring, rubbishing or denigrating.

I'm not here as a poster boy for Alex Salmond. I am, in fact, a Tory - in as much as Adam Smith was.

I'm not anti-English either. I was born in England, visit regularly and have many friends there.

I AM anti-Westminster and a significant number of people south of the border feel exactly the same way. The only difference is that in Scotland, we have a chance to do something about it.

Gaz J said:
I'm not trying to be antagonistic here as I genuinely wish all scots the very best if its a yes vote and would want to keep close ties with an independent Scotland to try and benefit all of us.
Click to expand...

If only that attitude persisted, we wouldn't be in the state we are at the moment. Thank-you Gaz for saying it all the same.
 
As is obvious from where I live, I'm Welsh and proud of it and I do understand when Scots that I work with and count as close friends tell me its about wanting to control their own destiny.

Westminster is only concerned with the south east of the UK. Outside that they don't give a toss. With all the recent flooding in other parts of the country there was nothing but excuses coming out of the government agencies. There's been a lot of bad weather (no s*** Sherlock), you've built on a flood plain etc. As soon as a bit of flooding occurred in the south east we were being told that a second Thames barrage was needed.

All politicians are economic with the truth and cannot give an honest or straight answer to any question. The rhetoric that is coming from both parliaments falls into this bracket. I found it very amusing that John Swinney was asked on question time recently by a member of the audience to give a straight Yes or No answer to the question being discussed which was "are the BBC impartial with regards to the yes/no campaign" John Swinney then proceeded to rabbit on for a couple of minutes to the disgust of the individual in the audience.
I'm not picking on him because he was representing the Yes campaign simply using him as an example.

There will be negotiation and both sides will come to compromises because that's the way of the world and no one gets everything that they want.
 
jollyjack said:
if you want to go, go. At least my taxes will not pay for your free medication and education.
Click to expand...

They don't now!

The trouble with this thread is that people are not reading it! a subject comes up and is covered and a few days later up pops another one time poster spouting the same tired old misconceptions all over again.
 
Steep said:
They don't now!

The trouble with this thread is that people are not reading it! a subject comes up and is covered and a few days later up pops another one time poster spouting the same tired old misconceptions all over again.
Click to expand...
I am a one time post to this thread as it's got nothing to do with photography and political subject should not be allowed as it's just gets peoples backs up. I lived in Scotland for 14 years and work in the fans lanes nuclear base and was treated like crap by scots because I was English. Whilst we live in Scotland prescriptions were free, when we return for a visit my Scottish wife fell ill and we had to pay for it, if this is not the case then I stand corrected, but tax payers money should allow one part of the union to get something free when else where they get it free.

The point on uni education is true and that's a fact as we have family north off boarder getting it free.
 
Of course political subjects should be allowed. And this thread will perhaps help people to understand the true feelings of many Scots.

Some may not agree, some may say good riddance and some genuinely want the union to carry on but we live in a democracy and there is no law to say that the status quo has to be maintained. If there was then we would still have an empire, and be in even bigger trouble trying to maintain it.

As for prescription charges, I didn't pay last year when I flew in from offshore for some treatment. I even queried it at the chemist and was told no one pays for prescriptions in Scotland.
 
Jon this thread has been running for over two years because people posting in it have acted like adults and long may it continue (well at least until September anyway).

The Scottish government pay the cost of prescriptions for Scottish residents from the Scottish budget but they can't afford to pay for everyone. English taxes are NOT used to fund this.

I'm not sure what point you were referring to re uni education, but English taxes don't pay for any Scottish students 'free' education either, in fact I was reading today that about half of the Students in Scottish universities are English, because although they have to pay, they pay less than they would in an English uni. Seriously, if you guys have a problem with having to pay these fees, do something about it, lobby your MP make a fuss, get something done! Don't just sit there and moan at us because our government has had the nads to stand up to Westminster.
 
Last edited:
From the money Scotland pays into the Westminster 'pot' from Scottish taxes Jon, some of this is handed back for the Scottish government to run the country and they pay for Prescription charges and uni fees this way.
 
I hope the union stays together but you really need to spend some time with the guys that believe with a passion that they should be independent to even begin to understand the whole situation.

When you sit with them and see the fire in their eyes you get the idea then how important this is.
 
Gaz J said:
I hope the union stays together but you really need to spend some time with the guys that believe with a passion that they should be independent to even begin to understand the whole situation.

When you sit with them and see the fire in their eyes you get the idea then how important this is.
Click to expand...
I have many friends and family that are Scottish and I know important this is to some off them. Even if like my friend Tam, it's an hate of the English rules which has been bread into him from generation to generation (words from his own mouth).

Any way hope the vote is No, if it's Yes, hope you all do well but Alex still has not said how he will make work money wise (businesses talking about leaving if it is yes). We will just have to wait and see. Think it's time to leave this thread as it might start getting a little personnel if we are not careful.
 
Steep said:
Jon this thread has been running for over two years because people posting in it have acted like adults and long may it continue (well at least until September anyway).
Click to expand...

The thread was started in 2012 and lasted 2 days before it disappeared into the forum dungeons

It was then resurrected in February 2014

so no, in reality, this thread has not been running for over two years
 
/edit nit picking.
 
Last edited:
Gaz J said:
I hope the union stays together but you really need to spend some time with the guys that believe with a passion that they should be independent to even begin to understand the whole situation.

When you sit with them and see the fire in their eyes you get the idea then how important this is.
Click to expand...

I agree - It's very important - to a minority.

More want to remain in the Union but (unlike Salmond) the 'No' bunch isn't trying that hard.

I know they've dropped the age group they can 'influence' but I'm involved with school kids, Scouts, Cubs, Brownies, Rainbowss etc - and the overiding view is they want to remain part of GB.
 
Last edited:
Ii know that 16-17 year olds can vote for independence but in the event of a yes vote would they then be allowed to vote to elect a government?

If not then its a massive hypocrisy on the part of the SNP for effectively trying to buy a yes vote. Lets face it if a 16 year old can vote for independence it will be the single most important vote in their lives. Voting for a government after is trivial by comparison.
 
If anybody still thinks this is all about oil, here is an extract from papers by the Scots Secretariat regarding Westminster income and expenditure for Scotland in 1920-21

contribution.jpg


Desires for Scottish Independence are not a 'new thing'.
 
Gaz J said:
Ii know that 16-17 year olds can vote for independence but in the event of a yes vote would they then be allowed to vote to elect a government?

If not then its a massive hypocrisy on the part of the SNP for effectively trying to buy a yes vote. Lets face it if a 16 year old can vote for independence it will be the single most important vote in their lives. Voting for a government after is trivial by comparison.
Click to expand...

That's a good question and I'm not sure what the best answer is. On the one hand the referendum vote is a once in a lifetime opportunity and one that will affect entire lives, whereas a vote in a general election is a once in 4 or 5 year opportunity. Nearly all the 16-17yr olds on 18th September this year will be 18 and old enough to vote in the first independent elections when they happen.
Did I have the social awareness and common sense to make a valid decision when I was 16? I'd like to think I did. What I didn't have at that age was the experience to help me see past the half truths and misdirections that ALL politicians engage in, or the partisan leanings of the various media, in other words I was still more likely to believe what I was told by 'adults' was true. It's only really when you get out in the world, join the workforce etc. that you begin to be able to filter fact from fiction properly.
That said if you can get married, have children, work and most importantly pay tax then you should have the right to vote whether you're capable of making an informed choice or not, I know many adults who can't do that!
 
FourRingCircus said:
If anybody still thinks this is all about oil, here is an extract from papers by the Scots Secretariat regarding Westminster income and expenditure for Scotland in 1920-21 ... Desires for Scottish Independence are not a 'new thing'.
Click to expand...
Not quite sure what point you're trying to make here, John. Has anybody seriously claimed that the desire for independence is a 'new thing'?

The note about Scotland's finances is interesting in a historical context, but pretty meaningless. Without knowing what "Scottish Services" covered, it's totally impossible to say whether or not Scotland was a net contributor to the economy of the UK. And since the pamphlet was written by the pro-independence movement, we can't necessarily expect the analysis to be balanced. For example, it seems plausible to me that, since England has about 90% of the UK's population, about 90% of central government activity which is carried out for the benefit of the whole UK - or, in those days, the Empire - (e.g. defence, tax administration, etc) would be carried out in England. It's hardly a surprise, but the author of that pamphlet seems to think it's an injustice.

You might be trying to claim that England has been bleeding Scotland dry for nearly 100 years, and maybe it has, but this isn't evidence.

(Incidentally, did you notice that the person who posted that article this morning on another website got the source completely wrong? It would be interesting to find out where this did come from.)
 
StewartR said:
Not quite sure what point you're trying to make here, John. Has anybody seriously claimed that the desire for independence is a 'new thing'?
Click to expand...
My mistake Stewart - I thought someone here had suggested that it was only because of oil that the independence movement came into being but I must have picked that one up elsewhere!:oops: :$
 
I do understand more after the eu tv debate how you may say the no campaign is negative and Mr Clegg used the typical MP stance saying anyone who disagrees is wrong and I am Pro EU

I do however have to agree with other non Scotland members that I would expect a referendum on the sterling issue and any government who denied us better stand by for riots as it would for me stand as dictatorship

I can tell you I would vote no, I know you are going to tell me that's bad for me but sorry I disagree.

Why would I vote no, easy when Scotland said they may not accept the share of debt if no sterling. That I see as a clear threat I think any who have read my posts know I don't doubt you could go alone would like you to to stay, but the debt issue is blackmail

I would sooner the rest of the union took all of the debt than be subjected to blackmail

This is only my opinion no one has to agree
 
jollyjack said:
Where does the Scottish budget come from?
Click to expand...
It comes from the UK consolidated fund which is where tax revenue (and other government income, e.g. money raised by the DMO on the bond market aka "national debt" ) from the whole of UK goes. A proportion of this is then transferred into the Scottish consolidated fund, which is the money the Scottish parliament has to spend.
 
border_all said:
I can tell you I would vote no, I know you are going to tell me that's bad for me but sorry I disagree.

Why would I vote no, easy when Scotland said they may not accept the share of debt if no sterling...
Click to expand...

To the first bit, as long as you are aware of exactly what you'd be voting for you won't get any argument from me.

To the second bit, you need to read Nicola Sturgeons comment in context, unfortunately the media where you'll have got that from are very good at cherry picking the bits that they think will sell more product. It's been discussed already in the thread.
 
Steep said:
That's a good question and I'm not sure what the best answer is. On the one hand the referendum vote is a once in a lifetime opportunity and one that will affect entire lives, whereas a vote in a general election is a once in 4 or 5 year opportunity. Nearly all the 16-17yr olds on 18th September this year will be 18 and old enough to vote in the first independent elections when they happen.
Did I have the social awareness and common sense to make a valid decision when I was 16? I'd like to think I did. What I didn't have at that age was the experience to help me see past the half truths and misdirections that ALL politicians engage in, or the partisan leanings of the various media, in other words I was still more likely to believe what I was told by 'adults' was true. It's only really when you get out in the world, join the workforce etc. that you begin to be able to filter fact from fiction properly.
That said if you can get married, have children, work and most importantly pay tax then you should have the right to vote whether you're capable of making an informed choice or not, I know many adults who can't do that!
Click to expand...
There was a radio programme recently with a few 16 year olds on it. The only issue for them was free university education. I haven't made my mind up but I'm convinced that the vote for 16/17 year olds is simply an attempt to buy a yes vote.
 
I've been very impressed with the interest and knowledge shown by the younger demographic in this debate. As you'll be aware, a 16 year-old can get married in Scotland, so I don't think that level of responsibility should be accomanied by a lack of a vote. Besides, it could be argued that the 16/17 year olds will have to deal with independence for longer than any pensioner, so I tend to agree with thier right to a vote here. That said, I think that the 'age of consent' across a wide range of issues has gone too low and should be harmonised at eighteen. I think we give a confusing message in society about ages for when you can and can't do things. When you can get married and have kids, get a job and pay tax, the idea that you can't watch a porn film, smoke a cigarette or vote is ludicrous. My own view is that getting married and having kids at 16 is ludicrous. However, until that is addressed, getting a vote at 16 is fine by me.
 
Gaz J said:
You seemed to be quite clear in your post that the islands would be no better than an enclave of another nation.

If that's what they did consider best then a redrawing of the median line would throw a serious spanner into the finances of Scotland. Probably better to get them on board with you now.
Click to expand...
???

My post was making clear the background of the story and the ruling - I gave no opinion until clarifying the words placed in my mouth.

On the spanners - referring to my very earliest posts in this thread, good. A country (and indeed the world) cannot live on non-renewable resources and the "benefits" handed back from the proceeds of selling that. Of course it's nice to have, but in terms of nett energy per person oil peaked long ago, and we're on a soon to be accelerating downslope. Building a country on the basis of oil revenue is short-sighted, whether that be UK, Scotland or Shetland. If those fields are rightly Shetland's, (and they go for and secure independence) then I hope they use them wisely. Such ruling in favour of Shetland would also give strength to Scotland's need to wrest the Scottish seas back from London control. rUK would lose the lot, and drop much farther into nett energy importer. Interesting times all around in that case.
 
Last edited:
FourRingCircus said:
As for talking down, I haven't bothered to try intimidation by telling you that I'm Chief Exec of a multi-national corporation. You have no idea how many economists I know, or what level of access I 'probably' have to them either.
Click to expand...

I've never known a CEO of a multi-national company to have so much spare time lol
 
FourRingCircus said:
I've been very impressed with the interest and knowledge shown by the younger demographic in this debate. As you'll be aware, a 16 year-old can get married in Scotland, so I don't think that level of responsibility should be accomanied by a lack of a vote. Besides, it could be argued that the 16/17 year olds will have to deal with independence for longer than any pensioner, so I tend to agree with thier right to a vote here. That said, I think that the 'age of consent' across a wide range of issues has gone too low and should be harmonised at eighteen. I think we give a confusing message in society about ages for when you can and can't do things. When you can get married and have kids, get a job and pay tax, the idea that you can't watch a porn film, smoke a cigarette or vote is ludicrous. My own view is that getting married and having kids at 16 is ludicrous. However, until that is addressed, getting a vote at 16 is fine by me.
Click to expand...

My perception is entirely different, it feels like we are increasingly always extending childhood. The only age of consent that I can recall being lowered in my lifetime is the one with regard to homosexual sex, which was an equality issue and the old limit (21 then 18) could not stand when we have undertaken not to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.

I am all in favour of trusting teenagers to be able to make decisions about important things for themselves and having statute explicitly place that trust. The ruling of the Law Lords in Gillick recognises their ability to do so (I wonder if an independent Scotland will do away with that one, when it sets up its own supreme court), but that is judge made law as this is an area where the politicians will never legislate in out of terror of the blue-rinse / Daily Mail brigade. I can recall being a teenager and feeling massively frustrated by my inability to the lack of respect society paid to my opinions and the lack of self-determination available to me and followed that case with interest as it happened around my 16th birthday. I didn't rail against those that constrained me, but kept my head down and waited until I was considered old enough to make my own decisions. That said, the memory never fades and I have remained an advocate of increasing self-determination for teenagers ever since.
 
I don't think we are that far apart Mark. I too recall the teenage frustration very well, but this is now balanced with the realisation that a sixteen year old may not be completely rational with an abundance of new responsibilities. The voting 'thing', for me, should be tied to paying (or being of an age to pay) tax. If it's not, it becomes a case of being allowed to buy a Mars Bar but not being allowed to eat one. The age of marriage debate is completely different and whilst I do actually know a couple who were married at sixteen (and still are decades later), I reckon that a couple of extra years emotional/relationaship maturity wouldn't be out with the realms of common sense. The paradox I see these days is that there are many more sixteen year-olds who have a superb grasp of the facts and figures (often beyond their years) and yet they struggle with some of the simplest practical things that a fourteen year old may have done a couple of decades ago. For example, budgeting finances, wiring a plug or fixing a mechanical item. In other words, they all know that they need to study to gain qualifications to get a job to earn decent money, but they seem to have no comprehension of where the money for a mobile phone comes from, or how to even exist without such an electronic device.
 
gman said:
I've never known a CEO of a multi-national company to have so much spare time lol
Click to expand...
Really? Do you think we work hard for a living? :ROFLMAO:

The hard work is all done by this stage - now it's just kick-back and watch the £ roll-in while everybody thinks we work hard. ;)
 
FourRingCircus said:
Really? Do you think we work hard for a living? :ROFLMAO:

The hard work is all done by this stage - now it's just kick-back and watch the £ roll-in while everybody thinks we work hard. ;)
Click to expand...

lol
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top