Is Scottish independence a 'good or bad' thing?

Scroll to see replies

We're being asked to swap Westminster for Holyrood. I don't have a high opinion of either, so see it as a pointless exercise.

Would the subsea and marine renewables sectors become a complete basket case with independence - why wouldn't the Scottish government invest in it (seeing as they are pledging to go completely green by 2020?).

The Scottish government would have less money to invest in it, and dividing us from England, Wales and NI would make it harder for those sectors to prosper as many of the resources they need, both equipment wise and personnel wise, come from south of the border. I'm sure independence will be a hot topic at this years' subsea exhibition, which is incidentally this week, so I'll hopefully be able to find out more soon.

How do you explain high approval ratings?

How do you explain the fact that only a third of Scots support independence?

I'm not sure about that. No vote % is continuously decreasing and with 8 months to go and more debates planned I wouldn't hedge any bets just yet..

Even after the whitepaper, support for independence still barely even broke a third. The SNP has failed to make a viable economic case for independence, instead being discredited by just about everyone, so I would say the game is over.

Majority of people want more devolved powers to Scotland. So far, the likes of Alistair Carmichael and Douglas Alexander haven't guaranteed anything..

The SNP could have easily fought for devo-max first, and they'd have almost certainly won, but they didn't...

I'm not sure why it has to be one or the other. Create an oil fund but also invest in the renewable sector. The oil is really an icing on the cake in my opinion.

You can only spend the money once!

Plus with independence, one can properly look at areas of the budget where savings can be made (e.g £16 billion on Trident, £1.5 billion from defense, not having to pay for the ludicrous interest on UK's £1.5 trillion debt etc...)

Those figures are not what an independent Scotland would save from its budget, though, rather the UK as a whole.

Excuse my ignorance but what would be the reasons for increasing production costs? Regulations? Difficulty with access? Surely, with improving technology, production costs should go down?

Many reasons. Smaller fields often still require large infrastructure investment, so the CAPEX costs are relatively much higher. Skills shortages are pushing wages up. Ageing existing infrastructure requiring large investment and upgrades.

Reply 5761

Midlander

Original post by cowsforsale

It's not really a swap though, is it? The Scottish MSPs will still be around, no matter what result is reached.

It's more like deciding to keep Westminster or not. It also allows us to chuck the FPTP voting system and get rid of the House of Lords.

Would the subsea and marine renewables sectors become a complete basket case with independence - why wouldn't the Scottish government invest in it (seeing as they are pledging to go completely green by 2020?).

How do you explain high approval ratings?

I'm not sure about that. No vote % is continuously decreasing and with 8 months to go and more debates planned I wouldn't hedge any bets just yet..

Majority of people want more devolved powers to Scotland. So far, the likes of Alistair Carmichael and Douglas Alexander haven't guaranteed anything..

I'm not sure why it has to be one or the other. Create an oil fund but also invest in the renewable sector. The oil is really an icing on the cake in my opinion.

"Without oil  we perform to the average of the UK and the best of any UK region outside the South-East. A mediocre batting average that can be so much better, but not a  bad starting point. Add energy windfalls into the equation and the opportunity to replicate Norway’s saving, albeit on a smaller scale, remains to be achieved."

Plus with independence, one can properly look at areas of the budget where savings can be made (e.g £16 billion on Trident, £1.5 billion from defense, not having to pay for the ludicrous interest on UK's £1.5 trillion debt etc...)

Excuse my ignorance but what would be the reasons for increasing production costs? Regulations? Difficulty with access? Surely, with improving technology, production costs should go down?

1. What is your gripe with the House of Lords?

2. The No campaign is suffering badly at the hands of its figurehead-Alistair Darling is the Yes campaign's best dream come true. Salmond promises anything anybody wants to hear and Darling just sits back and does nothing.

3. I'm confused by your comparison of Scotland to other regions of the UK. I thought it was condescending to view Scotland as a mere 'region' rather than a country? More to the point, how on Earth is it a fair comparison to line Scotland, a whole constituent state, up against small regions of England when weighing up prosperity? You'd think that the streets of Leven and Kirkcaldy are paved with gold with how much we hear about Scotland's vast wealth.

4. Your figures on potential savings are of course misleading in that you refer to the total UK spend on things like Trident rather than Scotland's actual contribution to this.

Scotland already has devolution in many of the areas important for day to day life. It has also benefitted from getting more money per head in public spending than England and Wales for almost 40 years courtesy of the Barnett formula. Considering both, it is frankly absurd to be complaining at the status quo just because the party you don't like currently holds the cards at Westminster.

Reply 5762

L i b

Original post by cowsforsale

Strange that BT asked him to be part of an expert panel :s-smilie:

?

Yeah, **** knows what they were thinking.

Weird how he panned the SNP's white paper, saying it might put off potential- yes voters.

I think you'd be in want of wits if you thought the white paper was somehow a strategic win for the SNP. Just because he's SNP-inclined doesn't mean he's had a lobotomy and just because because he's usually wrong doesn't mean he's wrong on this. Even a broken clock tells the correct time twice a day.

The Prof has a convincing background too (oxford educated, taught at LSE).

Doesn't mean he's not an absolute numpty, as ably demonstrated in the article I pointed to above.

I'd be inclined to think he maybe is some sort of historian, with a very narrow subject knowledge. He definitely knows extremely little about constitutional law or politics.

Reply 5763

L i b

Original post by Good bloke

You've now spent it three times: once to create a fund, once to invest in renewables and once to spend it on the things it is currently spent on.

Quite. I'm sure the SNP has spent it many times more over.

Not to mention that £7.4bn deficit, which will only get larger as we end up footing the bill for the costs of separating off.

Reply 5764

Good bloke

Original post by L i b

Quite. I'm sure the SNP has spent it many times more over.

Not to mention that £7.4bn deficit, which will only get larger as we end up footing the bill for the costs of separating off.

Yup. Several hundred million for the split at least, plus the much bigger sum to move Trident.

Reply 5765

Good bloke

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-26028481

Now wait for the SNP response:

We welcome this confirmation that oil will continue to be produced after Scotland becomes independent. Independence will clearly allow BP profits to rise again, but it is clearly scaremongering to suggest that Scotland might not use the pound after independence.

Reply 5766

MatureStudent36

Original post by Good bloke

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-26028481

Now wait for the SNP response:

SNP response.

Scaremongering
Talking Scotland down etc

Reply 5767

Kj91

FT from Yesterday.

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 5768

Good bloke

Original post by Kj91

FT from Yesterday.

People have to subscribe in order to be able to read FT articles, so that link is pretty useless. A key point, not headlined by you, in it is:

In a research paper this week, James Knightley, senior economist at ING, said the high transition costs of separation and uncertainties over currency and the terms of EU membership meant that the material benefits of independence were “far from clear”.

In the FT today:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/0159925c-883f-11e3-8afa-00144feab7de.html#axzz2sMCjhVf1

Fund managers based in Scotland face a multimillion-pound bill to pay for a new financial regulator if Scots vote for independence in the September referendum, the trade body for Scotland’s financial services industry has warned.

The public intervention by Scottish Financial Enterprise underlines growing concern in a crucial sector of the economy about the implications of Scotland breaking away from the rest of Britain. “A yes vote would require the creation of an additional financial regulator with hundreds of staff. The cost would run into millions and have to be paid for by the industry in Scotland,” said Owen Kelly, chief executive of the trade body.

and

As well as the additional fees associated with a new regulator, funds would face extra administrative costs as they cope with demands from agencies on both sides of the border, said Nathan Willmott, a partner at law firm Berwin Leighton Paisner.

“Where you have a problem, you would have to co-ordinate between two regulators,” he said. There was a burden associated with dealing with “two regulatory regimes.”

and

Shiv Taneja, managing director of Cerulli Associates, a consultancy, said the vote was increasingly on the radar of international fund managers as well. A US fund manager visiting Edinburgh last week told him that a Yes vote would be “bad news for Scottish fund managers in terms of sourcing assets”.

“He took it quite seriously, and frankly I think it is a bad idea all round,” he added.

Reply 5769

Midlander

Original post by Good bloke

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-26028481

Now wait for the SNP response:

Curious how the SNP go on in that to speak for the rest of the UK's population by saying we want a shared currency. When it's the other way round Salmond gets woad on his face.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 5770

FinalMH

http://www.scotsman.com/news/education/school-pupils-brand-snp-mp-gimp-on-twitter-1-3292348

This is shocking.

“Well, that was an interesting BBC Brian’s Big Debate. The audience of 200 were all No supporters, bar three, at Strathallan private school.” SNP MP twitter

Reply 5771

Good bloke

Original post by FinalMH

What a tosser! Politicians never get anywhere by insulting the electorate.

Reply 5772

FredOrJohn

I've taken my name of the watching list. This has gone on way too long

Reply 5773

Good bloke

Original post by FredOrJohn

I've taken my name of the watching list. This has gone on way too long

Blame Alex Salmond; he wanted the referendum in September 2014 instead of getting it all over and done with a year or so back. After September you'll be able to forget about it for another thirty or forty years.

Reply 5774

Good bloke

Original post by Midlander

Quite. Has a referendum been carried out, or a poll, telling them what the UK public think? I don't think so.

I'm certainly not in favour of the BoE acting as lender of last resort for a foreign country.

Reply 5775

inniz

So when (I hope) Scotland becomes independent, why not have them gloat about oil, when:

- Many countries are looking towards shale oil/gas
- Countries in Africa will export more oil than them

As for a shared currency, so be it. The only thing is it wouldn't be set to meet Scotland's interests, so how "independent" would they be exactly? :wink:

Reply 5776

flugelr

Original post by FinalMH

I dunno if you listened to the debate or not, but Wishart was pretty offensive in my view. He basically told the kids that because they are at private school they must all be Tories and therefore their opinions don't count.

He started calling schoolkids names, they called him names back. All pretty childish really.

Reply 5777

cowsforsale

Original post by flugelr

Yes, Wishart chucked his toys out of the pram after that one.

BBC should have tried to get a 50-50 audience though..

Reply 5778

cowsforsale

Original post by Good bloke

You've now spent it three times: once to create a fund, once to invest in renewables and once to spend it on the things it is currently spent on.

You speak as if the oil is gone. Record investment (£14bn) in 2013 and likely the same in 2014, and plenty left to extract (e.g Firth of clyde, areas around Shetland).

Scotland will just have the interest on its own debt, which will be in proportion to its population. Still proportionately, in your words, ludicrous.

Which will be much easier to handle - plus some experts have suggested that Scotland should be able to negotiate a lower % of it due to Westminster's handling of the oil.

Anyway, £4.1 bn of Scotland's £7.4 bn deficit went to pay for the interest on the UK debts - Just the interest only! Crazy!

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 5779

cowsforsale

Original post by Midlander

1. What is your gripe with the House of Lords?

I'm quite surprised that you support the HoL after seeing some of your posts about the monarchy.

It's undemocratic, people are getting in depending on the size of their purse strings.

4. Your figures on potential savings are of course misleading in that you refer to the total UK spend on things like Trident rather than Scotland's actual contribution to this.

No..

http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/12-defence-facts-that-the-no-campaign-dont-want-you-to-know/
http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/political-news/ditching-trident-would-save-uk-84bn.17086421

Scotland already has devolution in many of the areas important for day to day life. It has also benefitted from getting more money per head in public spending than England and Wales for almost 40 years courtesy of the Barnett formula. Considering both, it is frankly absurd to be complaining at the status quo just because the party you don't like currently holds the cards at Westminster.