Is Scottish independence a &#x27;good or bad&#x27; thing? - Mk II

Original post by Boab

The deficit of the UK costs us around £50bn in interest every year. Now Scotland pays a per capita proportion of that even though the UK's deficit is much higher, proportionally than Scotland's, so Scotland is paying interest payments on the rUK's debt.

You don't seem to understand how it works. At the national level the UK government does the borrowing. It takes in tax, borrows money, pays out interest and pays for non-devolved matters (which are either specific to England or which benefit us all). It also pays money to the devolved regions (i.e. Scotland, NI and Wales) and to local authorities) who all make their own spending decisions on matters within their own remit. No person or body pays, directly, interest on government borrowing except the government. There can be no such thing as England having a higher per capita debt than Scotland since neither have their own debts.

Reply 382

Another interesting article, even if it assumes Scotland will be in the EU.

"A spokesman for the FSCS said: 'We cannot at this stage anticipate what a Scottish government might do about the scope and structure of a compensation scheme for the country. FSCS has had no approach from, or discussion with, the Scottish government.'"

Reply 383

Original post by Good bloke

You don't seem to understand how it works. At the national level the UK government does the borrowing. It takes in tax, borrows money, pays out interest and pays for non-devolved matters (which are either specific to England or which benefit us all). It also pays money to the devolved regions (i.e. Scotland, NI and Wales) and to local authorities) who all make their own spending decisions on matters within their own remit. No person or body pays, directly, interest on government borrowing except the government. There can be no such thing as England having a higher per capita debt than Scotland since neither have their own debts.

Erm, yup, I do.

Scotland runs a deficit. More money in than out.
rUK runs a bigger deficit. Even more money in than out.

Pretty simple!

Reply 384

Original post by glowinglight

It's even more reason for someone whose bank balance is small.

That might be quite complicated. It wouldn't be reducible to what country a banking group or company is registered in or what currency an account is in, especially given that people would need to move their money out of Scotland before it became independent.

Don't forget that Independence Day would be on 24 March 2016. That's Maundy Thursday. Banks in England and Wales will reopen after Easter, 5 days later, on Tuesday 29th! Even in Scotland, banks shut on Good Friday.

Can you imagine the queues and panic?

It might be better to move money out of the UK altogether while Scotland is still in it, to Germany or wherever. Which isn't so easy for many people to do without travelling there.

Not really, no Govt lets its savers go to the wall. The UK Govt even bailed out idiots who put money into Icelands banks even though there was no reason to do so. £5k per head would be perfectly manageable. The question is more whether the bank protection would be £40k or £80k or £120k rather than whether its £0k or £85k. Theres nothing that makes any arbitary limit less affordable in Scotland than in the UK

Its not complicated. My savings accounts have sort codes in England. I could set up accounts with NS&I which would be a bit safer still.

lol people will have 18 months before those dates, if they leave moving their money to the last minute thats their daftness.

Reply 385

Original post by Boab

Erm, yup, I do.

Scotland runs a deficit. More money in than out.
rUK runs a bigger deficit. Even more money in than out.

Pretty simple!

Er, yes. You haven't considered that the UK might be paying for things that benefit Scotland and such matters (like defence) aren't devolved?

Reply 386

Original post by Boab

Erm, yup, I do.

Scotland runs a deficit. More money in than out.
rUK runs a bigger deficit. Even more money in than out.

Pretty simple!

You're not getting it. What does the "Scottish" balance-sheet for the MOD say then? How much does "Scotland" put in and how much does it take out?

Reply 387

Original post by Good bloke

Er, yes. You haven't considered that the UK might be paying for things that benefit Scotland and such matters (like defence) aren't devolved?

Yes I have.

Reply 388

Original post by Boab

Erm, yup, I do.

Scotland runs a deficit. More money in than out.
rUK runs a bigger deficit. Even more money in than out.

Pretty simple!

Not for 13/14....

Quite the opposite..

Reply 389

Original post by glowinglight

You're not getting it. What does the "Scottish" balance-sheet for the MOD say then? How much does "Scotland" put in and how much does it take out?

Scotland pays £3.3 billion for defence and £1.9 billion of that is spent in Scotland - that one was easy!

Well that was 12/13 figures anyway. Sure it hasn't changed much.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 390

An interesting point that I hadn't spotted previously is that the SNP is assuming that immigration into Scotland will grow over the coming years and, indeed, intends to encourage even more. This is because they need it to grow to give a wider tax base to pay for their spending plans.

At the same time the UK government is trying to bring immigration down.

Yet, SNP assumes that iScotland will be in a common area with the UK and Ireland with no border controls.

This clearly can't happen. The UK can't allow such an open back door into Britain from a country with such a laissez-faire attitude to immigration or its own immigration will continue out of control.

Reply 391

Original post by Boab

Scotland pays £3.3 billion for defence and £1.9 billion of that is spent in Scotland - that one was easy!

Well that was 12/13 figures anyway. Sure it hasn't changed much.

First, Scotland pays nothing, directly, for defence. The UK government buys it all. Second, it is irrelevant where the money is spent (a good deal goes to the USA, for instance) and it is impossible to spend it all within the UK, so all the constituent parts receive less in spending than their occupants pay in taxes.

An independent Scotland would probably spend a far larger proportion of its defence budget abroad than the UK does.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 392

Original post by Good bloke

An interesting point that I hadn't spotted previously is that the SNP is assuming that immigration into Scotland will grow over the coming years and, indeed, intends to encourage even more. This is because they need it to grow to give a wider tax base to pay for their spending plans.

At the same time the UK government is trying to bring immigration down.

Yet, SNP assumes that iScotland will be in a common area with the UK and Ireland with no border controls.

This clearly can't happen. The UK can't allow such an open back door into Britain from a country with such a laissez-faire attitude to immigration or its own immigration will continue out of control.

Why not? It does with Ireland...

Its less to widen the tax base and more to maintain population as Scots continue to 'emmigrate' (migrants of the type the UK hasn't an issue with ie talented ones).

Its an interesting point but I suspect people would rather be legal migrants in Scotland than illegal ones in England/Wales...

Reply 393

Original post by Good bloke

First, Scotland pays nothing, directly, for defence.

I know this, it was evidence defence spending was considered within the figures.

We could argue all day about who pays for what, which is why I said its pointless.

Reply 394

Midlander

Original post by Boab

No it doesn't!

The deficit of the UK costs us around £50bn in interest every year. Now Scotland pays a per capita proportion of that even though the UK's deficit is much higher, proportionally than Scotland's, so Scotland is paying interest payments on the rUK's debt.

When we go Independent we will be expected to pay our fair share. So, Westminster foots the bill? No, Scotland does!

Wales and NI inflate the deficit because their own ones are so big. England's is the smallest per head and considering that in absolute terms it puts in far more than any of the 3 then you could conclude that Westminster does indeed foot the bill. The Scottish deficit at the moment is funded by the UK taxpayer, whereas in iScotland it rests upon the Scottish taxpayer alone.

Reply 395

Original post by Midlander

Wales and NI inflate the deficit because their own ones are so big. England's is the smallest per head and considering that in absolute terms it puts in far more than any of the 3 then you could conclude that Westminster does indeed foot the bill. The Scottish deficit at the moment is funded by the UK taxpayer, whereas in iScotland it rests upon the Scottish taxpayer alone.

Only if yer a simpleton!

Scotland pays its way already, so when Independent, we'll have to foot the bill we already pay for? Brilliant!

You do like a Scotland is poorer than England debate don't ya?!

Reply 396

Original post by Quady

no Govt lets its savers go to the wall.

The US, 1929-33. Germany, same period. Russia, 1998. Argentina 2001 (in effect).

Original post by Quady

Theres nothing that makes any arbitary limit less affordable in Scotland than in the UK

The domination of retail banking in Scotland by two large banks?

Reply 397

Original post by Boab

Scotland pays £3.3 billion for defence and £1.9 billion of that is spent in Scotland - that one was easy!

"Spent in Scotland" - nope, you're not getting it.

Reply 398

Original post by glowinglight

The US, 1929-33. Germany, same period. Russia, 1998. Argentina 2001 (in effect).

The domination of retail banking in Scotland by two large banks?

Apart from the US the others were where the country itself went to the wall. And the US never made that mistake again. Had RBS gone bust that night I think you could have counted the UK in that list.

What is the market share of the two in Scotland? (domination is the an evocative term you've no doubt read in the press...)

Reply 399