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

Shall I call for the Waaambulance?

Reply 2781

Maths Tutor

Story on the BBC website today:

"Mr Salmond said "8% and more" of Royal Mail was "owned by the people of Scotland".

"He added: "What right has David Cameron and George Osborne to sell off our bit of the Royal Mail before the people of Scotland have the opportunity to take assets like that into Scotland's hands and take a decision about how we want to run public assets in this country?""

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-24100362

Predicted story in the anti-Scottish Independence media tomorrow:

'Salmond claims 8% and more of Royal Mail belongs to him'

Note: TSR removed my post which gave a link to an article on a pro-Scottish Independence website ridiculing the following headline in The Daily Express:

"Now SNP plans to outlaw our cars"

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/428981/Now-SNP-plans-to-outlaw-our-cars

Question to TSR: Is it within TSR rules to 'advertise' the BBC and The Daily Express because they are both anti-Scottish Independence?

Reply 2782

Maths Tutor

Original post by L i b

In reality, I don't think anyone cares if Royal Mail is privatised, they just care about the quality of service.

This statement further proves how far the likes of yourself are from realilty.

No one in his / her right or honest mind thinks that the "quality of service" will be maintained with privatisation.

What will happen to postal services to the Shetland Islands?

Well I guess they can 'separate' from Scotland and unite with rUK to save their postal services - they will be 'Better Together' with 'UK OK' because surely Salmond will re-nationalise Royal Mail and the "quality of service" will go into free fall.

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 2783

MatureStudent36

5

Maths tutor. You keep claiming that because a media outlet doesn't tell people to vote an actual way they're anti or pro. They're impartial

Reply 2784

Original post by punani

It would lower house prices as greedy landlords would be forced to sell of their properties and would prevent an asset bubble from forming in the housing market in the first place. It would then lower rents as the landlords left would require a lower yield. It would also mean that since more people can afford to buy homes due to lower prices, landlords will be competing for tenants, again reducing rents.

I don't think so.

Firstly, why should Scotland inherit any debt? Secondly what do you mean the asset will realise another asset?

Scotland expects to inherit assets (such as territory and property) and should also expect to inherit debts. It brought debt with it to the union and will be taking debt with it. Even the SNP don't argue against this..

If you sell an asset in return for money you are merely exchanging one asset for another. The Royal Mail (one asset) will be exchanged for another (cash).

Reply 2785

Original post by L i b

I'm not sure I accept anyone will 'suffer' from this. I mean really, what are we doing with a nationalised monopoly on postal delivery anyway? When it was the King's couriers gallantly riding through the marches, warding off potential highwaymen with their royal warrants of authority, then fine. In this day and age, it's simply a service - and a service that is increasingly being delivered (no pun intended) by private enterprise anyway.

Well I would imagine people living in rural and remote areas will be hit the hardest from service changes, fee hikes and post office closures. I think there is an argument for keeping a universal mail delivery system nationalised as people living in areas deemed to be uneconomical for private companies to provide a service will either be faced with exorbitant fee hikes or be hit with a very limited service. Personally I wouldn't mind paying a little extra for my stamps in order to fulfil the needs of these people.

Obviously most of us are using email etc instead of mail for most of our communication these days but there are things we still need to send through the post and it would be unfair to discriminate against people based on where they happen to live.

When it comes to parcel delivery, this is the profitable area of the business. I imagine the royal mail must make a fair chunk of their profits from amazon alone. Is it fair that people in remote areas pay more for parcel delivery? I suppose you could argue either way, but I think a nationalised or not-for-profit parcel delivery organisation wouldn't be a bad idea.

Maybe putting a government contract out for tender to ensure these customers are serviced without paying a huge penalty in terms of price rises and reduced services would have been a fairer option. Or perhaps doing some deal whereby a company will be granted government parcel delivery contracts if they keep a decent service for these rural customers?

In any case If we have a completely free market those people living in unprofitable areas will suffer unfairly. Just as we subsidise unprofitable bus routes in order for everyone to have access to public transport, the same should be done for mail.

Reply 2786

Original post by Good bloke

I don't think so.

Scotland expects to inherit assets (such as territory and property) and should also expect to inherit debts. It brought debt with it to the union and will be taking debt with it. Even the SNP don't argue against this..

If you sell an asset in return for money you are merely exchanging one asset for another. The Royal Mail (one asset) will be exchanged for another (cash).

I think it is rather far fetched to suggest that Westminster will take some money off Scotland's debt pile due to the Royal mail Sell off. Will they take money off for all the other public assets sold off that the people of Scotland were against? I highly doubt it.

If we are to take debt with us, which I still say we shouldn't, it would be vastly unfair to do this purely on a population basis as England and in particular the South East has benefited far more than Scotland from the spending of this debt pile. Scotland's financial sector is 7% of GDP while the UK as a whole is around 10%. A fair assessment therefore would be for Westminster to carry around 50% more of the debt that would be assigned on a population basis to Scotland due to financial sector failings since the UK economy has benefit around 50% more than the Scottish Economy from these sectors.

Reply 2787

Original post by punani

I think it is rather far fetched to suggest that Westminster will take some money off Scotland's debt pile due to the Royal mail Sell off. Will they take money off for all the other public assets sold off that the people of Scotland were against? I highly doubt it.

Why not? If the total national debt is £100 and the sell-off realises £10 that leaves the debt at £90 and Scotland's share (at 8%, say) as £7.20 instead of £8.

If we are to take debt with us, which I still say we shouldn't, it would be vastly unfair to do this purely on a population basis as England and in particular the South East has benefited far more than Scotland from the spending of this debt pile. Scotland's financial sector is 7% of GDP while the UK as a whole is around 10%. A fair assessment therefore would be for Westminster to carry around 50% more of the debt that would be assigned on a population basis to Scotland due to financial sector failings since the UK economy has benefit around 50% more than the Scottish Economy from these sectors.

There is no way anything other than population will be taken into account. What about the poor areas of northern England? What about the wealth in Edinburgh?

Reply 2788

Original post by Good bloke

Why not? If the total national debt is £100 and the sell-off realises £10 that leaves the debt at £90 and Scotland's share (at 8%, say) as £7.20 instead of £8.

I'm not saying this isn't a good idea, I just can't see it happening this way.

There is no way anything other than population will be taken into account. What about the poor areas of northern England? What about the wealth in Edinburgh?

Yes but I would suggest, and the figures back me up here, that Edinburgh is far less financially significant to Scotland than London is to the rest of the UK. Since a massive chunk of the UK's debt pile, at least half, has been spent on financial sector bailouts and QE, and since England has benefited far more than Scotland because of this, it is only fair to suggest that England should pay a far greater proportion than they would solely by a population based split.

Reply 2789

Original post by punani

I'm not saying this isn't a good idea, I just can't see it happening this way.

You think there is a secret not to be shared with Scotland pot, then? :rolleyes:

Yes but I would suggest, and the figures back me up here, that Edinburgh is far less financially significant to Scotland than London is to the rest of the UK. Since a massive chunk of the UK's debt pile, at least half, has been spent on financial sector bailouts and QE, and since England has benefited far more than Scotland because of this, it is only fair to suggest that England should pay a far greater proportion than they would solely by a population based split.

You seem to be forgetting the Royal Bank of Scotland, in the recent past.

Well, following the failure of the Darien scheme, the Scots decided they couldn't go it alone anymore and wanted to benefit from the growth of English trade and what became the British Empire. They did, of course, so benefit. Should this be ignored, or are you proposing we look individually at everything that has happened over the last 300 years and apportion the benefits and debts in detail?

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 2790

MatureStudent36

5

Original post by punani

Well I would imagine people living in rural and remote areas will be hit the hardest from service changes, fee hikes and post office closures. I think there is an argument for keeping a universal mail delivery system nationalised as people living in areas deemed to be uneconomical for private companies to provide a service will either be faced with exorbitant fee hikes or be hit with a very limited service. Personally I wouldn't mind paying a little extra for my stamps in order to fulfil the needs of these people.

Obviously most of us are using email etc instead of mail for most of our communication these days but there are things we still need to send through the post and it would be unfair to discriminate against people based on where they happen to live.

When it comes to parcel delivery, this is the profitable area of the business. I imagine the royal mail must make a fair chunk of their profits from amazon alone. Is it fair that people in remote areas pay more for parcel delivery? I suppose you could argue either way, but I think a nationalised or not-for-profit parcel delivery organisation wouldn't be a bad idea.

Maybe putting a government contract out for tender to ensure these customers are serviced without paying a huge penalty in terms of price rises and reduced services would have been a fairer option. Or perhaps doing some deal whereby a company will be granted government parcel delivery contracts if they keep a decent service for these rural customers?

In any case If we have a completely free market those people living in unprofitable areas will suffer unfairly. Just as we subsidise unprofitable bus routes in order for everyone to have access to public transport, the same should be done for mail.

Once again we have an argument based on myth. As with the Privatisation of BT,the Railways, the Bus service etc, loss making routes/rounds etc are bundled with profitable ones.

To see our future you just ned to have a look at some of the other European nations. They're privatising their mail services. Something to do with EU Monopoly laws. The same EU hat Alex Salmond is driving us into.

Reply 2791

Original post by MatureStudent36

Once again we have an argument based on myth. As with the Privatisation of BT,the Railways, the Bus service etc, loss making routes/rounds etc are bundled with profitable ones.

To see our future you just ned to have a look at some of the other European nations. They're privatising their mail services. Something to do with EU Monopoly laws. The same EU hat Alex Salmond is driving us into.

More like something to do with government subsidies paid to these companies to keep unprofitable areas open.

Reply 2792

Original post by Good bloke

You think there is a secret not to be shared with Scotland pot, then? :rolleyes:

I think that if you believe Westminster will take into account all the public assets sold off during the union and adjust Scotland's debt pile accordingly you are dreaming.

You seem to be forgetting the Royal Bank of Scotland, in the recent past.

Well, following the failure of the Darien scheme, the Scots decided they couldn't go it alone anymore and wanted to benefit from the growth of English trade and what became the British Empire. They did, of course, so benefit. Should this be ignored, or are you proposing we look individually at everything that has happened over the last 300 years and apportion the benefits and debts in detail?

I knew you would bring up RBS. I would have been quite happy for it to be allowed to go bust. The people of Scotland were given no choice in this bailout. It was a decision made by Westminster. How much of the QE programme went to Scottish based financial institutions compared to their English counterparts? Not much at all.

The Union was proposed to bailout the Scottish nobility. The vast majority of Scottish people were fiercely against the Union at the time.

For every argument you can give for how the Scots gained from the Union, I could give an argument for what the Union gained from Scotland. Let's not go down this route as it will get rather tedious.

I think we will have to go into it in extreme detail to work out a fair solution. My position is that if we are to be burdened with some of Westminster's debts it is only fair that it is constructed more equitably than a simple split based on population. This would be deeply unfair to Scotland. Also there are quite a few technical details that would need to be taken into account considering the structuring of the debt and to whom it is owed. Since the Bank of England structured the QE and Bailout debt so that the banks owe money to the BOE but the BOE owes the same amount of money to the banks this effectively cancels each debt out, but it is the taxpayers that pick up the interest bill. It would be outrageous if Scotland ended up owing this money to either the BOE or the UK commercial banks without being allowed to structure it in a way similar to how the BOE did it in the first place.

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 2793

lucas13

15

good for rest of uk, bad for scotland

Reply 2794

Original post by punani

I think that if you believe Westminster will take into account all the public assets sold off during the union and adjust Scotland's debt pile accordingly you are dreaming.

But it will. The debts figure at the date of independence (which automatically takes account of all sales of assets and other incidents) will be crystallised and Scotland will take its share.

For every argument you can give for how the Scots gained from the Union, I could give an argument for what the Union gained from Scotland. Let's not go down this route as it will get rather tedious

.

So you just wish to cherry-pick what you want taken into account, and ignore the other factors, all to Scotland's benefit? :rolleyes:

Reply 2795

Original post by Good bloke

But it will. The debts figure at the date of independence (which automatically takes account of all sales of assets and other incidents) will be crystallised and Scotland will take its share.

.

So you just wish to cherry-pick what you want taken into account, and ignore the other factors, all to Scotland's benefit? :rolleyes:

All public assets sold during the course of the Union? Are you sure?

When discussing the total debt figure that Scotland may be lumbered with, you must take into account how this money was spent and to whose benefit. The benefits Scotland may or may not have gained from being part of the Union, or indeed what it may have costs us are irrelevant to how the debt figure should be carved up. These are issues to consider when deciding on whether Scotland should be independent in the first place, not how the debt should be carved up, if indeed it should.

Reply 2796

Original post by punani

All public assets sold during the course of the Union? Are you sure?

Of course. It is obvious.

Reply 2797

Original post by Good bloke

Of course. It is obvious.

I can't tell if you're being serious or not? You think they will add up all the public assets sold off in the last 300 years, work out what Scotland's cut of this would be and then take this off the debt that Westminster would like to pass on to Scotland?

Reply 2798

Original post by punani

I can't tell if you're being serious or not? You think they will add up all the public assets sold off in the last 300 years, work out what Scotland's cut of this would be and then take this off the debt that Westminster would like to pass on to Scotland?

Of course I'm being serious. You don't need to account for all the previous transactions, just the final asset/debt value.You seem to be having difficulty understanding so I'll use an everyday example.

Let's assume my wife and I jointly own a house with a mortgage and a car - only (to keep this simple) - and we decide to divorce and split our proceeds equally. The house is worth £300,000 and will cost £2,000 to sell. We owe £250,000 on the mortgage and the car is worth £10,000. We don't have to look at all the transactions that led to us buying the house and car at all - just the current value.

We sell the house for £300,000 and pay the selling costs of £2,000 and pay off the mortgage, leaving us with £48,000 and a car (total worth £58,000). Since my wife cannot drive, I take the car and £19,000 and she takes £29,000.

If we had, instead, had a £320,000 mortgage (because the house had fallen in value from the £400,000 we had paid for it) we would have net debts of £12,000 instead of net assets of £58,000. If I kept the car it I would have to pay her £5,000 for her share of it but we would each owe the mortgage company a further £6,000.

If, in each of those two circumstances, we had sold the car first and realised its value of £10,000 there would have just been an extra £10,000 in the cash pot but no car for me to keep so we could just split the remaining cash/debts equally with no need for me to buy half the car or for her to take a bigger share of the pot to offset the car's value. The net effect is the same.

Reply 2799

L i b