Should Scotland become independent??

This is not an argument. And it is very naive to think that Scotland has a 0% chance of joining the EU on it's own.

In the question

Honestly the lack of comprehension displayed by the britnats on this thread .

Same auld tired bull being repeated robotically. Duff that has previously been disproved numerous times... you spew out in a repititious manner....almost robotically. Its like you have been brainwashed by your gutter press into believing your own exceptionalism.

Dullards!

No wonder the rest of the world is laughing at ye.

Find one way Scotland will manage to bypass a currency crisis, a reputation for defaulting on massive levels of debt, the Catalonia crisis and the EU coming out to say it isn't happening.

EU coming out to say it isn't happening.

Perhaps you should call for another referendum its been 4 years since the last one thats a generation isnt it?

Surely your superior arguments will convice the rest of the scottish electorate this time.

Nah.....we are going to make sure the rest of the UK is kept within the EU first

Yes I know that already. Well everyone please stop pointing out the obvious.

Honestly the lack of comprehension displayed by the britnats on this thread .

Same auld tired bull being repeated robotically. Duff that has previously been disproved numerous times... you spew out in a repititious manner....almost robotically. Its like you have been brainwashed by your gutter press into believing your own exceptionalism.

Dullards!

No wonder the rest of the world is laughing at ye.

And the chances are quite high. The Scottish legal system is 100% EU compliant

we would be applying from a position of recent and long-term membership, and there are plenty of MEPs who would support them being admitted quickly. It's likely they would end up having to adopt the euro, which they would prefer to avoid, but that's a small price to pay to be rid of the Tories forever.

2) Complete bunkem to suggest an independent Scotlands passage back into the EU would be anything other than straightforward and expediated.

3) Scotland is a wealthy nation. Scotland contributes £200 billion a year to UK GDP. Scotland receives a block grant back from Westminster of £45 billion a year to cover public services. That is a big shortfall.

With regards to the supposed deficit...perhaps it would educate some of the more dense headed posters if they had a look at the breakdown of that deficit. I think you will find that a huge chunk of it is made up with Scotlands supposed allocation of UK debt. Indeed, we are supposed to assume that Scotland being 8.5% of the UK's population is respnsible for circa 35% of the UK's total debt. A nice little Westminster accounting trick that.

I really isn't. I, for one, think an independent Scotland could get into the EU eventually. I suspect, however, that the terms of that entry might make it rather unattractive.



I'm rather having to bite my tongue here if you're confusing public revenue with GDP. Moreover, it's the Scottish Parliament that receives a block grant, not "Scotland" - public expenditure through reserved services is considerably higher (and, incidentally, the block grant is not £45 billion: the total managed expenditure of the Scottish Government is only £42 billion, and a portion of that is made up through other means).



Debt does not contribute directly to a deficit. Indeed, debt does not appear in Scottish Government accounting - only debt interest does, which is far from the most important factor in Scotland's notional deficit. In terms of one part of the UK accounting for a large share of the UK's deficit, that's quite apparent from our public spending figures: if one part breaks even, and another has a deficit of only a pound, then it is accountable for 100% of the national deficit.

It might help if you actually understood some of these things before going around calling others "dense". There's nothing wrong with not knowing stuff if you interact in an even remotely civil way, but if you come striding in throwing insults while showing your own shortcomings for all to see, you're going to get called out on it.

Dont you even dare come on here talking sense

I really isn't. I, for one, think an independent Scotland could get into the EU eventually. I suspect, however, that the terms of that entry might make it rather unattractive.



I'm rather having to bite my tongue here if you're confusing public revenue with GDP. Moreover, it's the Scottish Parliament that receives a block grant, not "Scotland" - public expenditure through reserved services is considerably higher (and, incidentally, the block grant is not £45 billion: the total managed expenditure of the Scottish Government is only £42 billion, and a portion of that is made up through other means).



Debt does not contribute directly to a deficit. Indeed, debt does not appear in Scottish Government accounting - only debt interest does, which is far from the most important factor in Scotland's notional deficit. In terms of one part of the UK accounting for a large share of the UK's deficit, that's quite apparent from our public spending figures: if one part breaks even, and another has a deficit of only a pound, then it is accountable for 100% of the national deficit.

It might help if you actually understood some of these things before going around calling others "dense". There's nothing wrong with not knowing stuff if you interact in an even remotely civil way, but if you come striding in throwing insults while showing your own shortcomings for all to see, you're going to get called out on it.

I try to avoid it as much as possible!

The EU one is interesting though. Despite some of the rhetoric, four in ten voters in Scotland want out - and being in gets the benefit of being the status quo, at least for now. I'm a Remain voter, but even my principles have taken a bit of a bash given the recent direction of the EU and faced with Full EU rather than the EU Lite that the UK has enjoyed for the past few decades, I can't really see it being an open and shut decision. The UK also shields Scotland somewhat from the choice of being a contributer to the EU's coffers.

If you ask me, the SNP should have pitched their tent firmly in EEA territory. They'd be able to look farmers and fishermen in the eye, at least, and it would enable them to have a serious answer on questions like currency (if they could ever get around to it) and the England-Scotland border.

I appreciate I'm probably just inviting loads of "our public spending figures (produced by the Scottish Government) are a unionist plot", "the British Government lied about secret oil fields", "the Scotland Act 2016 never happened - and if it did, it was shite anyway" type comments, which is depressing enough, but c'est la vie.

Oh dear......where to start.

I have provided evidence by way of comments made by high level EU and Spanish officials suggesting Scotlands path into the EU will not be opposed and indeed should straightforward.

If your now assertion is that Scotland could get into the EU but the terms of entry would be unattractive, please provide evidence.

Or is it just ill judged opinion.

2) If you had actually read my posts you would have realised that at no time did I suggest that GDP was he same as revenue. The point I was making was that similar sized European economies do not run such high deficits.

Have a look at the link from taxresearch I posted earlier. It explains a lot. By the way the author is not a Scotsman. He is a professor of Accounting at the University of London.

The basics of the argument are that the statistical basis for GERS is gunk ( but any sensible person with an interest knows that)

You make it sound as if I have changed my assertion: a claim I find rather puzzling, given that I never provided any previous assertion to you.

I'm saying that an EU without a rebate, without Britain's range of hard-won opt-outs, with membership of the Euro and with the fiscal controls imposed within the Eurozone isn't really a hugely appealing prospect.



You certainly suggested it by conflating the two. That might have been unintentional, but it was certainly the outcome.

GDP does not link particularly well to what a country can raise in tax revenue. GDP can be generated in many ways and with differing levels of taxable income created. If your point was simply that other countries have a similar GDP to Scotland but raise more in tax, I'd simply say "well, good for them". They are not Scotland.



Yes, unfortunately I know Richard Murphy's work well and generally dismiss him as a crank when it comes to this subject.

His contention, if you've gone through it, is broadly that tax take from spending outside of Scotland is not counted as being raised in Scotland. The Fraser of Allander Institute, who are actual economists - and I would recommend their work, pointed out that even taking on board his assumptions made only a "relatively small" difference--

“Changing assumptions about how much spending is allocated ‘for’ Scotland or spent ‘in’ Scotland in GERS will change the net fiscal position. But any revisions are relatively small.”

He was, of course, challenged on all of this before a committee of the Scottish Parliament. As it turned out, none of the rest of the panel - largely composed of some quite impressive people - agreed with his analysis. After quite a lot of toing and froing, he watered down his contention somewhat, saying--

"we would maybe be talking about a couple of percentage points or so of the stated Scottish deficit. However, we are using estimates and very rough-and-ready stuff that was done on the basis of blogging, not on the basis of doing a lot of deep searching. I am not pretending that I have done that."

Indeed, he was questioned not only on the basis of his position (which is, in itself, ridiculous) but also on the actual quantum of difference it would make (which he had absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support). If you're seriously basing your case on that, then good luck to you.



Strange how not a single economist invited before the same committee as Richard Murphy agreed to that, then, when pointedly invited to do so. Indeed, Margaret Cuthbert - who is a Scottish nationalist - called him out for calling GERS "crap" and asserting the huge amount of work that had gone into making it effective.

This sort of thing is nothing more than denialism. You mention that Richard Murphy is not a Scotsman - sure, but he does have a rather unhealthy attachment to the limelight, attaches himself to causes and seems to make an arse of himself at every turn. He tried to get himself attached to Labour's treasury team at one point, which led John McDonnell to deny association with him, saying "he is not the economic adviser and never has been, because we doubted his judgment, unfortunately"

When even John McDonnell doubts your judgment, you're not really on very strong ground - I would suggest.

1) So..you cannot evidence in anyway your assertion that Scotland will face an arduous and/or lengthy time entering the EU. Thanks.

You mention the EU opt outs that Britain has negotiated and that an independent Scotland would lose....Hmmm correct me if I am wrong but is Scotland not about to lose them anyway.

Further...you mention having to join the Euro and the then lack of fiscal control.
a) New EU nations agree to an understanding that they will join the Euro
b) There is no set time period and you should be aware that several nations have joined and faced no demand to adopt the euro. Indeed Britains longest serving MEP, David Martin (labour) states:
"We (Scotland) would be entitled not to join or given a long transitional period so that we might never have to join it if we didn’t want to join it.”
c) Even if we did join the Euro, we certainly would have no lesser fiscal control than that which we currently have with the pound.

2) With regards to tax revenue...you again miss the point. Scotland with an affluent population, numerous high value exports, and a vast array of resource is shown as running a higher deficit than similar sized GDP's, who run equal or larger public sector spends but lack similar assets. The answer obviously is that the supposed deficit is nonsense.

3) I am sorry you had your Saturday evening spoiled. You must have spent several hours frantically googling to come up with a semi coherent reply in relation to GERS. I state this as its clear that you have no deeper understanding of the underlying issues with the statistics upon which GERS are based. I get it. You dodn't want look daft

Also...I have to say I find it hilarious that some internet no mark, chooses to be so derogatory
to someone who is a recognised authority in the field of statistical analysis and public finance.

Your lack of depth of knowledge in the matter is further exposed in your misuse of the Margaret Cuthbertson quote. If you had looked beyond the headlines of the britnat rags from which you obviously draw opinion, you would see that she was defending the work of the civil servants who compiled the figures based on the statistics....NOT the statistics themselves.

The reason.....accurate figures do not exist. This is a fact the GERS publication itself acknowledges. Therefore talk with certainty of any deficit and subsidy is all wind and pish.

The statistics upon which GERS are compiled are supplied every year to the Scottish govt by the UK treasury. Therein lies the problem. The vast majority of Scotlands revenue is collected at UK govt level. The figures on revenue from Scottish taxation are an estimate based on population share. The statistics themselves are bogus.

Income earned from Scottish companies or companies operating in Scotland is unquantifiable. VAT figures earned through transactions in Scotland is unknown. An item produced in Scotland and sold by a firm with a head office outwith Scotland is recorded as a sale where?