An Independent Scotland?

ST4 said:
And the 12bil black hole. Scotland spends too much. To match that spending tax has to go up or spending down.

As a new country with no track record borrowing will be expensive for you. As such either bye bye vat and tax cuts or bye bye free uni/prescriptions/child care. Given the socialist nature of the Scottish sprites it'll be bye bye tax cuts and hello tax rises to retain the silly level of public spending that's presently on offer to keep them happy
Click to expand...
Sorry, I thought in my example, the potential revenue increase may go towards either covering the increase in spending or help reduce the deficit.
 
Last edited:
Bobsyeruncle said:
Sorry, I thought in my example, the potential revenue increase may go towards either covering the increase in spending or help reduce the deficit.
Click to expand...

How would say a vat cut work when it's a small population, a significant amount employed in the public sector and uncertainty over the currency make Scotland a haven for retail spending.

Taxing the few rich folk to oblivion like labour did in the 70s or cutting spending (my favourite) is the only way Scotland will survive, and then the rich will leave. Socialism only works when you have other peoples money to spend
 
Bobsyeruncle said:
Sorry, I thought in my example, the potential revenue increase may go towards either covering the increase in spending or help reduce the deficit.
Click to expand...
And it could very well. A point I've made before. Focus on attracting business with good tax breaks on employment and profits. A little bit of a lot could be a lot more than s lot of a little bit. However with talk about nationalisation, not being in a trade union, possibly having to deal with special trade negotiations and import duties, it doesn't sound too attractive for large international organisations to base themselves in an independent Scotland and continue international trade. When focussing on the domestic market only it could work, however that won't plug the revenue gap that is required to pay for socialistic nirvana.

It is a tough call, and as highlighted in the divorce example, possibly the only outcome left possible at this stage. However it won't be without consequences for all involved. I would guess that it will take at least several generations possibly four or five before improvements in standards could be felt. And not even against current levels that will take much longer to restore.
 
dejongj said:
And it could very well. A point I've made before. Focus on attracting business with good tax breaks on employment and profits. A little bit of a lot could be a lot more than s lot of a little bit. However with talk about nationalisation, not being in a trade union, possibly having to deal with special trade negotiations and import duties, it doesn't sound too attractive for large international organisations to base themselves in an independent Scotland and continue international trade. When focussing on the domestic market only it could work, however that won't plug the revenue gap that is required to pay for socialistic nirvana.

It is a tough call, and as highlighted in the divorce example, possibly the only outcome left possible at this stage. However it won't be without consequences for all involved. I would guess that it will take at least several generations possibly four or five before improvements in standards could be felt. And not even against current levels that will take much longer to restore.
Click to expand...

We will have to see what the outcome of the currency arrangement are before anyone can say what will or won't work.
The yes campaign are not expecting everything to be utopia to minute we vote yes.
We will do whatever it takes to make it work.
 
ST4 said:
How would say a vat cut work when it's a small population, a significant amount employed in the public sector and uncertainty over the currency make Scotland a haven for retail spending.

Taxing the few rich folk to oblivion like labour did in the 70s or cutting spending (my favourite) is the only way Scotland will survive, and then the rich will leave. Socialism only works when you have other peoples money to spend
Click to expand...
A combination of lower vat, lower CGT and the right currency arrangements could make Scotland a haven for many things not just retail spending.
 
Bobsyeruncle said:
So our deficit is 8.3% of GDP, and yours is 9.3%
So why is it always doom and gloom for an independent Scotland, and not for the UK as a whole.
It appears to my inexpert mind, that we are not a million miles apart I percentage terms.
So if the UK government are able turn things around, then why can't we?
Click to expand...

Apologise, been working. Basically the difference is that these are uk figures, not just England. Uk govt has reduced the deficit significantly through public spending cuts, Scottish deficit is stable, but it relies on additional spending from the uk govt it despises so much.

If Scotland does take control of its own finances, then the deficit between spending and income must be addressed as it won't have a parent to continuously bail it out.

Historically, it's similar to why the union came about anyway. Uncontrolled Scottish spending meant the state was bankrupt.
 
Last edited:
Bobsyeruncle said:
A combination of lower vat, lower CGT and the right currency arrangements could make Scotland a haven for many things not just retail spending.
Click to expand...
Only if it is within a trading block as otherwise there will be a very big uphill struggle to make it internationally competitive. And we've had that conversation several times as to what that could mean for independence

Domestic market only is not that big to facilitate this.
 
Do we know how/ when the announcement will be made? I seem to recall someone saying roughly 8am on Friday.
 
Bobsyeruncle said:
Aye, next they'll be saying if we vote no, we'll be invaded by aliens:D
Click to expand...
You know, reading some of the arguments here,
I'm beginning to wonder if you haven't already :D
 
Byker28i said:
Apologise, been working. Basically the difference is that these are uk figures, not just England. Uk govt has reduced the deficit significantly through public spending cuts, Scottish deficit is stable, but it relies on additional spending from the uk govt it despises so much.

If Scotland does take control of its own finances, then the deficit between spending and income must be addressed as it won't have a parent to continuously bail it out.

Historically, it's similar to why the union came about anyway. Uncontrolled Scottish spending meant the state was bankrupt.
Click to expand...

Just read this. Interesting, although I do know that business Scotland supports a yes vote, so No doubt there will be many reasons for it being untrue.:p
http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/revealed-the-accounting-trick-that-hides-scotlands-wealth/
 
Albert Einstein stated that "Nationalism is an infantile disease. ... It is the measles of mankind

hope that it does not spread to rUK, (is that what it's called ex Scotland)

but presumably all that can now be done is to give Alex enough rope

 
Byker28i said:
Historically, it's similar to why the union came about anyway. Uncontrolled Scottish spending meant the state was bankrupt.
Click to expand...

We didn't have the resources then that we have now. All the uncontrolled spending in the past was done by the Gentry, and it was the Gentry that really had to be bribed, sorry I mean bailed out. The rest of the nation didn't want the union in the first place, but they had no choice. No referendum, nothing.
 
BillN_33 said:
Albert Einstein stated that "Nationalism is an infantile disease. ... It is the measles of mankind

hope that it does not spread to rUK, (is that what it's called ex Scotland)

but presumably all that can now be done is to give Alex enough rope
Click to expand...
All brains and no common sense. :p
Quote away all you like:D
 
Last edited:
dod said:
Some Scottish business supports yes, just in the same way plenty supports no.
Click to expand...
Like how you say some vote yes, while plenty vote no.
How about some support no, but plenty support yes. Has a better ring to it:D
 
Byker28i said:
It honestly wouldn't take much. Unused infrastructure at Portsmouth, since bae moved to Scottish yards, however that may well come back. Already secure with the navy fleet there Plenty of deep water at Milford haven, although more building would be required
Click to expand...

It would take quite a lot of planning and building and money to move. You'd be unlikely to have nuclear weapons being unloaded and loaded that close to cities with large populations.
 
Bobsyeruncle said:
All brains and no common sense. :p
Quote away all you like:D
Click to expand...

I hope that you were referring to me not Albert

George Orwell said that Nationalism was "power-hunger tempered by self-deception" ……… who could that be, ……….anybody you know
 
Last edited:
BillN_33 said:
hope that it does not spread to rUK, (is that what it's called ex Scotland)
Click to expand...

Nope, it will still be the UK as in The United Kingdom of England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

...and Scotland will still be Scotland not iScotland.
 
Somebody asked about when results would be in.

2:00am first results due

5:00am Glasgow declares

6:00am Final results.
 
Laudrup said:
It would take quite a lot of planning and building and money to move. You'd be unlikely to have nuclear weapons being unloaded and loaded that close to cities with large populations.
Click to expand...

Plymouth is already the Navy's nuclear repair and refuel facility, but yes you're right the cost would be a lot.

Milfird haven wold be attractive with the old armaments provisions at Pembrey, only trouble is the guge oil and gas terminals :D
I wonder if Colports floating dock could be moved? Either way some of the cost would have to be born by Scotland if they are kicking them out.
 
Last edited:
Bobsyeruncle said:
We didn't have the resources then that we have now. All the uncontrolled spending in the past was done by the Gentry, and it was the Gentry that really had to be bribed, sorry I mean bailed out. The rest of the nation didn't want the union in the first place, but they had no choice. No referendum, nothing.
Click to expand...

But your still spending 20% more than you've got income. The parallels are similar...
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
Byker28i said:
Plymouth is already the Navy's nuclear repair and refuel facility
Click to expand...

From the BBC about Plymouth:

The dockyard is also in a densely populated area, which poses a safety risk. There are about 166,000 people living within 5km of the Devonport base, compared with about 5,200 within that distance of Faslane and fewer close to Coulport. The city of Plymouth has about 250,000 residents and is within 3.5km of the dockyard. Glasgow has a population of about 600,000, but it is 25km away from Faslane.

Walker says loading warheads into the missiles on Trident is "very delicate and complicated" and a process that shouldn't be done in or near built-up areas.

"You can't have Trident missile bodies laden with rocket fuel and nuclear warheads near a city of quarter a million people - the UK regulatory authorities would be very uncomfortable with that," says Ritchie.

Lifting missiles is also a safety risk. "There needs to be an explosive handling jetty that is designed for the worst case scenario - if a missile is dropped or there is an earthquake, even if this might only happen once in several thousand years, and high explosives are scattered," says Chalmers.
Click to expand...
 
Laudrup said:
From the BBC about Plymouth:
Click to expand...
Yup, but they already carry out nuclear sensitive operations there, ok not huge warheads but...

The warheads are made at Aldemaston, that's a pretty big built up area, then they've got to be transported, so I really can't see it being that much of an issue if you look into the whole lifecycle.

Colport is just a floating dock anyway - as I said wonder if it could be moved.

Anyhow - new facilities, more jobs
 
Wonder if Salmond will stoop to blaming Cameron for what happened to David Haines from Perth

I hope not.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
Byker28i said:
Yup, but they already carry out nuclear sensitive operations there, ok not huge warheads but...

The warheads are made at Aldemaston, that's a pretty big built up area, then they've got to be transported, so I really can't see it being that much of an issue if you look into the whole lifecycle.

Colport is just a floating dock anyway - as I said wonder if it could be moved.

Anyhow - new facilities, more jobs
Click to expand...

I live close to Faslane and Coulport, got family and friends that work there but there is more to it than the EHJ:

Coulport has 16 reinforced concrete bunkers are built into the hillside near the village of Coulport, on the eastern shore of Loch Long.

Below the bunkers lie 2 docks for Vanguard nuclear submarines which are used when a patrol submarine is being loaded and unloaded with armaments. The older jetty is known as the Polaris Jetty, while the newer, covered Explosive Handling Jetty (EHJ) is used for handling Trident warhead

The Trident Works Programme at Coulport and Faslane, co-ordinated by the Property Services Agency took 13 years to complete. Planning work at Coulport began in 1982, and the estimated final cost for the entire programme, at 1994 prices, was approximately £1.9 billion. This made it the second most expensive procurement project in the UK after the Channel Tunnel project.
Click to expand...



I can't see 250,000 people or regulators being too happy they have nuclear weapons being unloaded and loaded a few miles away. The BBC discussed it here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-28009977
 
Maybe someone will rethink the old idea of floating docks and do it at sea or maybe some structure like a cross between oil rigs and floating docks I am sure the workers at Portsmouth would be more than happy to be building them the restart of building warships in a smaller UK if there is a yes vote.
 
Bobsyeruncle said:
So if we do reduce vat, and prices do come down, and we are cheaper than Ruk, maybe more businesses will want to be based in Scotland to take advantage of the increase in sales that will come from the preferential vat/corporation tax rates. This would in turn increase our revenue.
Click to expand...
Bobsyeruncle said:
A combination of lower vat, lower CGT and the right currency arrangements could make Scotland a haven for many things not just retail spending.
Click to expand...
Tax competition might make sense for Scotland. Create a business friendly environment, encourage multi nationals to locate in Scotland rather than the UK, and so on. It might work. It's worked to some extent tent for Ireland. Trouble is, Scottish politics is far too left wing. There are still far too many dinosaurs who think the way to increase the tax receipts is by increasing the tax rates, not decreasing them.
 
Tigger.ufo said:
Nope, it will still be the UK as in The United Kingdom of England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

...and Scotland will still be Scotland not iScotland.
Click to expand...

Won't it be the Kingdom of England, Wales and Northern Ireland, which is what it was called before Scotland became involved?
 
StewartR said:
Tax competition might make sense for Scotland. Create a business friendly environment, encourage multi nationals to locate in Scotland rather than the UK, and so on. It might work. It's worked to some extent tent for Ireland. Trouble is, Scottish politics is far too left wing. There are still far too many dinosaurs who think the way to increase the tax receipts is by increasing the tax rates, not decreasing them.
Click to expand...
That'll be the same dinosaurs that gave us free education and prescriptions?
 
lost said:
Even the Trident bases could be worked around in the short term it is the biggest sticking point in my mind but it is not impossible to find a solution where to keep them.
Click to expand...
Byker28i said:
It honestly wouldn't take much.
Click to expand...
It honestly would. Why don't you read the report written by the Scottish Affairs committee at Westminster, and then explain to us why they are so terribly wrong about it?

Here's the report:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmscotaf/676/67602.htm
 
CT Jones (whoever he was) wrote...
"A lot of people become pessimists from financing optimists"
That explains a lot :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top