An Independent Scotland?

gman said:
Was just wondering and this isn't a loaded question, but what's the worst case scenario for Scotland if she goes independent? I'm not interested in the anticipated and unrealistic replies such as "there isn't one" etc, but more a pragmatic one with some potential numbers, consequences and solutions?

For example, the current deficit of Scotland with a geographical share of North Sea oil is £8.6 billion. So if Scotland goes independent and gets a currency union, so let's assume that on that basis trade and assets and other associated elements retains their current value and stauts, but despite reforms with revenue and expenditure the deficit remains at £8.6 billion what would be the consequences and potential solutions to combat this? Realistically and practically, based on current conditions and events.

I do have theories in my head but I'm interested in hearing what other people's views would be.
Click to expand...

In fiscal terms it's unaffordable. Poll tax, council tax, bedroom tax or any other tax will be the only way to make it pay. The good people of Scotland are going to need very long arms and very deep pockets. Independence but at a massive cost.
 
Blank_Canvas said:
In fiscal terms it's unaffordable. Poll tax, council tax, bedroom tax or any other tax will be the only way to make it pay. The good people of Scotland are going to need very long arms and very deep pockets. Independence but at a massive cost.
Click to expand...
Not sure I follow you. National debts don't actually need to be paid back.....
 
Just listened to an interesting programme called 'The Voter's Voice' on Radio 4 about Scottish Independence. It was good to hear views that did not include any from politicians.

IMO it is worth a listen on iPlayer.

Dave
 
Cheers Dave I'll have a listen.
 
Blank_Canvas said:
In fiscal terms it's unaffordable. Poll tax, council tax, bedroom tax or any other tax will be the only way to make it pay. The good people of Scotland are going to need very long arms and very deep pockets. Independence but at a massive cost.
Click to expand...

Cheers. I didn't think my question would get a huge response, perhaps too much denial going on? Would still be interesting to see what people's views on a solution would be, from all sides that is.
 
Alex Salmond addressing the Scottish Cabinet in Arbroath. Live at the moment.

Followed by audience Q&A.

 
Last edited:
I can't wait for this referendum to fail so that we can all shut up about it :)
 
Steep said:
Alex Salmond addressing the Scottish Cabinet in Arbroath. Live at the moment.

Followed by audience Q&A.

Click to expand...

I quite enjoyed that.

The Q&A bit was better than the first part although I found the set up to be a little too 'are you sitting comfortably children'

Felt for the lady that raised the issue of dementia care around 1:43:30 mark

The 18th month issue was interesting - beginning 1:47 ish. He said this is not about 'project Salmond' or even the SNP and he would happily step down or abolish the whole SNP in exchange for independence in 2016 because it's all about giving us the opportunity to choose our own government.

Do we not already have that opportunity albeit at a UK level. Some would argue it's more important to have some voting influence within a larger and more influential body.

As we are, some geographical areas (including Scotland) may not end up with the government they want just now but that's true of many places. What next - do we give Skye, Orkney, Tayside, Borders or Western Isles the opportunity to choose their own government if in the future they happen to lean towards a different party than the independent Scottish majority ?

As a Union we vote in who we vote in and who knows - many years from now we could be sat here, under a UK government that's supported well in Scotland or indeed the North of England.
 
Last edited:
dinners said:
I quite enjoyed that. I did too.

The Q&A bit was better than the first part although I found the set up to be a little too 'are you sitting comfortably children'
Ditto, one of the first questions felt like a bit of a set up but they got better.

Felt for the lady that raised the issue of dementia care around 1:43:30 mark

The 18th month issue was interesting - beginning 1:47 ish. He said this is not about 'project Salmond' or even the SNP and he would happily step down or abolish the whole SNP in exchange for independence in 2016 because it's all about giving us the opportunity to choose our own government.

Do we not already have that opportunity albeit at a UK level. Some would argue it's more important to have some voting influence within a larger and more influential body.
Some would, others wouldn't, that's what the referendum is all about.
As we are, some geographical areas (including Scotland) may not end up with the government they want just now but that's true of many places. What next - do we give Skye, Orkney, Tayside, Borders or Western Isles the opportunity to choose their own government if in the future they happen to lean towards a different party than the independent Scottish majority ?
It applies to Scotland because we're a country but, there's a growing sector of the vote who believe that bottom up governance not top down is the way to go. European countries like France, Germany and the Nordics all have much greater representation at local level, starting with community councils and working upwards. This would take a bit of work and a fair change in Scots attitude to governance to achieve but it would address the issue of unfair weighting of cities.
As a Union we vote in who we vote in and who knows - many years from now we could be sat here, under a UK government that's supported well in Scotland or indeed the North of England.
Anything is possible but with independence we don't need to wait for some maybe future government that might suit our needs at the voting whim of others, we can create it ourselves.
Click to expand...
 
As a Union we vote in who we vote in and who knows - many years from now we could be sat here, under a UK government that's supported well in Scotland or indeed the North of England.
Anything is possible but with independence we don't need to wait for some maybe future government that might suit our needs at the voting whim of others, we can create it ourselves.

My last line was just tongue in cheek - a nod to YES view that indepedence isn't about what we can do or how good it will be right now but more about where we could be many many years from now. Works both ways.
 
Last edited:
I guess what I mean is:

The YES voters claim indepedence isn't about what we can do or how good it will be right now but more about where we could be many many years from now.

That works both ways - If we remain part of the Union, many many years from now we could be sat here, under a UK government that's supported well in Scotland or indeed the North of England.
 
I enjoyed the video but Salmond really has to stop the wise cracks - it's a little immature and I don't think the audience really appreciated it. A fair bit recycled in there and a point to note that with regard to John Swinney, it's always going to be easier to balance the books when a huge chunk of your income is fixed but it's still a good result. Some new stuff raised also and a fair few promises made such as no increases with Income Tax or National Insurance - will they keep these promises though? I noticed the answers were cleverly worded in as much as saying there's no need to raise taxes. Of course come post-independence should it happen then there could suddenly be a need. Bang goes the promise.

Obviously currency is still a big player in how things pan out but pensions is also a huge topic which doesn't seem to get as much attention as I feel it should. What if you have quite a few pensions such as a Military pension, a Government Pension, a State Pension and a Private pension. Who is going to pay what? They SHOULD know pre-independence and not brush off such an important topic with "it will form part of the negotiations". Which is of no reassurance. A pledge should be made by both sides - they've had the contributions now pay the bloody money back!

Immigration on a strict points system is welcome, although I'm not sure if there's any mention of immigrants requiring to have funds in their bank and proof of being able to support themselves going forward? To me this is probably the most important thing as it's one of those policies where the effects are almost irreversible. You only have to look as far as England to see the effects due to Labour's open door policy. I'm all for a multicultural society so long as it brings value to the country and not just to freeload our systems.


Things that annoy me:

The House of Lords.
The House of Lords food bill.
The House of Lords process of election into such - i.e. there isn't one.
The House of Lords accepting people with criminal records
The fact that to this date and despite the horrendous consequences nobody, absolutely nobody has been held responsible and prosecuted with taking us into the Iraq war.
Did I say The House of Lords?
Men that wear silly wigs.
 
Phil I understand you meant that, as far as I see it though if 'we' haven't been able to make a dent in 300 years why would a few years more make any difference? It's devolution that's made the difference here, we've found that we are capable of governing ourselves and now we want to go the whole way.
Staying as part of the UK we're always going to be playing second fiddle to England just by sheer force of numbers, never mind that it's our opinion that WM politics is failing/has failed just about everyone outside of Londonshire. Until the rest of rUK comes to agree with that point of view nothing will change and we can do nothing to change it except leave. There are folk in England (Billy Bragg for example) who think that independence for Scotland could be the best thing to happen to England because it will be a wake up call to those who've been put to sleep by WM politics.
 
gman said:
Some new stuff raised also and a fair few promises made such as no increases with Income Tax or National Insurance - will they keep these promises though? I noticed the answers were cleverly worded in as much as saying there's no need to raise taxes. Of course come post-independence should it happen then there could suddenly be a need. Bang goes the promise.

Obviously currency is still a big player in how things pan out but pensions is also a huge topic which doesn't seem to get as much attention as I feel it should. What if you have quite a few pensions such as a Military pension, a Government Pension, a State Pension and a Private pension. Who is going to pay what? They SHOULD know pre-independence and not brush off such an important topic with "it will form part of the negotiations". Which is of no reassurance. A pledge should be made by both sides - they've had the contributions now pay the bloody money back!
Click to expand...


I'm not sure he promised no tax rises, just said there should be no need for them as you say, of course that could change as it could anywhere.

The question of pensions has been answered completely, the pension you have paid into is the pension you get. If you've paid into the UK pension pot or the UK armed forces pension then your money will come from them. It's possible I suppose that there could be a deal made to shift responsibility to each country or maybe an option to have your pension moved to Scottish control.
 
I don't know if this has already been covered, so sorry if I have missed the boat. But there is something about all this that has been puzzling me.

This is a vote purely on whether Scotland want to be independent right? So in the event of a yes majority, that doesn't mean that the seo automatically take power no?

So after a yes vote, there would then be an election to decide what party would run Scotland.

So another party could well end up running Scotland, one with different views and intentions to Alex Salmond. In which case does that make all his views on how the country will perform and promises he makes almost irrelevant?
 
Independence day! is set for March 2016 specifically because that when the next Scottish elections are due. The idea being that pretty much immediately after indy we choose the first government. You're right the SNP may not be the first government of Scotland but until 2016 no-one will know, that's no different to any government making plans for the future though, they can't just stop because they might not get elected.
 
The referendum vote if it's yes does not mean Scotland is independent, WM still have to vote to accept the results.
 
I understand they still have to plan. Maybe it's just because I am too far south of the border, but I don't recall ever seeing anything from any other yes party, I assume there are some.

From here it just looks like the Alex Salmond show.
 
A lot of the problem there is that WM and the media want everyone to think it's all about Alex Salmond, that way they can demonize him and hopefully hurt the yes campaign. The Yes campaign goes to considerable lengths to say that independence is not about Alex Salmond or the SNP there's a whole raft of political parties and non political groups all campaigning together for this.

There's a fair list here of parties and interested parties from both sides of the argument - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endorsements_in_the_Scottish_independence_referendum,_2014

See this also though it's very incomplete.

View attachment 18720
 
Steep said:
I'm not sure he promised no tax rises, just said there should be no need for them as you say, of course that could change as it could anywhere.

The question of pensions has been answered completely, the pension you have paid into is the pension you get. If you've paid into the UK pension pot or the UK armed forces pension then your money will come from them. It's possible I suppose that there could be a deal made to shift responsibility to each country or maybe an option to have your pension moved to Scottish control.
Click to expand...


I was under the impression that the State pension has to be paid by which ever country you reside in and there isn't a pot so to speak, it has to come out of the current revenue of that country. This was confirmed in the Salmond / Darling debate. So if Scotland can't afford to pay out the full State pensions from current revenues, which I believe has also been confirmed and I'm sure I read that Salmond has admitted that he will need to bring in workers from the EU to try and help increase revenues for this, then the pensions paid out to people could be far less. Also, just because we can open the doors to EU workers doesn't mean there's jobs here for them.

As for the Military pension and Government pension, well Westminster could always reform this and I don't think they'll receive a great deal of protest from voters down south from reducing pensions paid to people living in Scotland, regardless of whether or not they've already received the contributions in the first place. As for Private pensions, well the value of this (and potentially the other pensions) may be dependent on whether or not Scotland gets a currency union. This brings me back to the fact that currency is not an asset in the traditional sense but a direct reflection on a country's prosperity - which subsequently puzzles me as to which Scotland would want to have a currency which would be effected and controlled by a union (i.e. the remaining UK) that is apparently holding us back?

As for revenue, with oil being such an important revenue stream can we afford to suddenly be competing with other huge oil producing countries who could potentially undercut us? Obviously extracting from the land is far cheaper than from the North Sea, I'm just wondering if they would be able to ship it across to the rUK also and still undercut the North Sea supplies? Is there any data on this?
 
As explained by Steve Webb the WM pensions minister when asked "by Labour MP Ian Davidson at the Scottish affairs committee whether people could be assured that their pensions would be secure if Scotland votes for independence in September's referendum, Mr Webb answered: "Yes, they have accumulated rights into the UK system, under the UK system's rules.""

It's no different to someone working in the UK and retiring to France, ther pension is paid by the UK.

gman said:
As for revenue, with oil being such an important revenue stream can we afford to suddenly be competing with other huge oil producing countries who could potentially undercut us? Obviously extracting from the land is far cheaper than from the North Sea, I'm just wondering if they would be able to ship it across to the rUK also and still undercut the North Sea supplies? Is there any data on this?
Click to expand...


'We' don't own or sell the oil the oil companies do and countries don't set the price. All properly independent experts say that projected oil revenue is much higher than WMs OBR quoted figures.
Also in case it's relevant there's already one land based pumping station up in Caithness and afaik there's more on the way, technology makes it easier to drill out to sea from the coast.
 
Steep said:
The Yes campaign goes to considerable lengths to say that independence is not about Alex Salmond or the SNP
Click to expand...
That's about the only message they're prepared to be transparent about.
 
dod said:
That's about the only message they're prepared to be transparent about.
Click to expand...

Yada and umm add some more yada for flavour.
 
Steep said:
As explained by Steve Webb the WM pensions minister when asked "by Labour MP Ian Davidson at the Scottish affairs committee whether people could be assured that their pensions would be secure if Scotland votes for independence in September's referendum, Mr Webb answered: "Yes, they have accumulated rights into the UK system, under the UK system's rules.""

It's no different to someone working in the UK and retiring to France, ther pension is paid by the UK.



'We' don't own or sell the oil the oil companies do and countries don't set the price. All properly independent experts say that projected oil revenue is much higher than WMs OBR quoted figures.
Also in case it's relevant there's already one land based pumping station up in Caithness and afaik there's more on the way, technology makes it easier to drill out to sea from the coast.
Click to expand...


Regarding the pensions, I'll believe them when it happens (from all sides).

As for oil, it doesn't matter if we don't own or sell it, the revenue the Government makes from it are directly related. If "they" sell less then the Government makes less. Still haven't found any figures to show how competitive we can be against the big oil countries.
 
Re pensions it 'does' happen right now, as I said no matter where you live in the world your pension gets paid into your bank by the UK why would living in Scotland be any different?
 
Because the UK can afford it at the moment.
Because of the negotiations and what may be agreed.
Because you may have spent some of your working life contributing in England and the remaining contributing in Scotland.
Because at the moment it's a UK State Pension, a UK Military Pension and a UK Government Pension.

If you move to France, who pays your State pension? The UK. So why is there talk of Scotland having to pay the State pensions of people post-independence if they live in Scotland when the original contributions were made to the UK (just like the Military and Government ones).

Is the rUK going to pay all the pensions for everyone living in Scotland whilst Scotland don't pay anything? Again, we are back to the negotiations and instability.

It's not that simple, but we all know who will ultimately suffer as always.
 
gman said:
What if you have quite a few pensions such as a Military pension, a Government Pension, a State Pension and a Private pension. Who is going to pay what? They SHOULD know pre-independence and not brush off such an important topic with "it will form part of the negotiations". Which is of no reassurance. A pledge should be made by both sides - they've had the contributions now pay the bloody money back!.
Click to expand...
gman said:
As for the Military pension and Government pension, well Westminster could always reform this and I don't think they'll receive a great deal of protest from voters down south from reducing pensions paid to people living in Scotland, regardless of whether or not they've already received the contributions in the first place
Click to expand...
gman said:
Regarding the pensions, I'll believe them when it happens (from all sides).
Click to expand...
gman said:
Is the rUK going to pay all the pensions for everyone living in Scotland whilst Scotland don't pay anything? Again, we are back to the negotiations and instability.

It's not that simple, but we all know who will ultimately suffer as always.
Click to expand...
If you don't mind me saying, you seem to have a very cynical view here. You seem to assume that the Westminster government will grab any opportunity to stitch up the Scots in post-referendum negotiations. Well, they might, but remember in the Edinburgh Agreement both governments "committed to continue to work together constructively in the light of the outcome, whatever it is, in the best interests of the people of Scotland and of the rest of the United Kingdom". It would be a monumental breach of faith to go back on that. If you think the Westminster government is capable of that, then perhaps you're best off without them.
 
gman said:
Was just wondering and this isn't a loaded question, but what's the worst case scenario for Scotland if she goes independent?
Click to expand...
I think the reason you haven't much of a response to this is that you've asked the wrong question. The "worst case" is very very bad indeed. Here are a couple of "worst case" scenarios.

The Ebola outbreak comes to Scotland, perhaps via some medical staff who have been volunteering out in West Africa, and it takes hold. England closes the borders. International trade with Scotland ceases. The Scottish NHS can't cope and the English NHS doesn't see any need to get involved in a foreign country.

The oil price goes south in a big way, perhaps because fracking takes off and the Saudis have to respond. Scotland is much more exposed than it was as part of the UK, tax revenues are hugely reduced and the country goes bust.

There's probably one related to climate change too. Perhaps someone else would like to flesh that one out.

Obviously these are lurid and implausible. But you didn't ask about "reasonably possible down-sides" to independence; you asked for the "worst case" .
 
StewartR said:
I think the reason you haven't much of a response to this is that you've asked the wrong question. The "worst case" is very very bad indeed. Here are a couple of "worst case" scenarios.

The Ebola outbreak comes to Scotland, perhaps via some medical staff who have been volunteering out in West Africa, and it takes hold. England closes the borders. International trade with Scotland ceases. The Scottish NHS can't cope and the English NHS doesn't see any need to get involved in a foreign country.

The oil price goes south in a big way, perhaps because fracking takes off and the Saudis have to respond. Scotland is much more exposed than it was as part of the UK, tax revenues are hugely reduced and the country goes bust.

There's probably one related to climate change too. Perhaps someone else would like to flesh that one out.

Obviously these are lurid and implausible. But you didn't ask about "reasonably possible down-sides" to independence; you asked for the "worst case" .
Click to expand...
How about an Ebola outbreak takes hold in England, Scotland closes its borders. War breaks out in the Middle East, and the oil fields are bombed, so the price of oil rises considerably, providing great riches for Scotland, which allows us to further develop green technology for the future. Scotland develops an antidote for Ebola and saves England.:p
 
There was an interesting program on BBC2 tonight 9:00--10:00

Mind Games

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b04fgqzd/referendum-documentaries-11-mind-games


Scotland is about to make one of the most important decisions in its history. On the 18th September, people will vote to decide if Scotland becomes an independent country. Ken MacDonald explores what psychological techniques both campaigns are using to influence how people will make up their minds ahead of this historic vote.

By speaking to leading neuroscientists and those campaigning on both sides of the debate, and by conducting research, this programme attempts to determine the factors which affect the way people come to conclusions.

Neuroscientists believe that when people are faced with making important decisions, a range of emotional, psychological and neurological factors affect the outcome. Using the latest technology to tap into people's subconscious, it is now possible to determine how a person might vote before they even realise it themselves.
 
Last edited:
I think it's quite reasonable to assume the deficit won't just vanish post independence.
 
Bobsyeruncle said:
How about an Ebola outbreak takes hold in England, Scotland closes its borders. War breaks out in the Middle East, and the oil fields are bombed, so the price of oil rises considerably, providing great riches for Scotland, which allows us to further develop green technology for the future. Scotland develops an antidote for Ebola and saves England.:p
Click to expand...
But the question was about the "worst case" scenario for independence, not the "best case".
 
StewartR said:
But you didn't ask about "reasonably possible down-sides" to independence; you asked for the "worst case" .
Click to expand...

And I went on to explain such worst case being that Scotland couldn't bring in enough revenue to cover both the expenditure and reduce the current deficit. A financial situation that could well happen.

But for some reason you've decided to take it completely out of context and quite frankly got rather silly about it all. Epidemics etc.... So, my worst case scenario is Scotland not being able to reduce its deficit and your worse case scenario is the total collapse of Scotland and the Scottish riddled with disease.......who's the one with cynical views then? lol
 
Are there any proposals down on paper from the SNP and Independence with regard to improving the very weak laws related to animal cruelty?
 
I have no idea, ask them.

If there isn't, wait for indy and then do your bit to get something sorted.
 
I never get a reply whenever i ask things to be honest.

Just seen the latest that if independence doesn't go ahead they want to penalize Scotland so to speak. Not a good attitude and will only serve to fuel the yes campaign i reckon.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top