Is Scottish independence a 'good or bad' thing? Watch

Poll: Should Scotland be an independent country?
YES (299)
32.12%
NO (632)
67.88%
This discussion is closed.
Choo.choo
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#3461
Report 6 years ago
#3461
(Original post by Good bloke)
One thing is for certain - the whiskey industry is completely worthless to Scotland.

Now the whisky industry is a different matter.
Point taken (if you're correct - not sure if you are).
0
Gordon1985
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#3462
Report 6 years ago
#3462
(Original post by Good bloke)
But this isn't the deal. That is far too simple. For a start, is Scotland's share of the costs of the diplomatic service apportioned in those GERS figures? I don't know but I somehow doubt it.
I assume that comes under 'International Services', so yes, I assume they are. Why wouldn't they be?

The UK won't save money on diplomacy if Scotland goes but Scotland will have to start paying out money for the first time (one area where we are better together, of course). And, as I have said before, these intra-UK subsidies vary over time and are very notional.
Scotland is already paying for diplomatic services via the UK government.

Look at what would happen in the real world in the case of independence. There would be a large loss of income-generating jobs in Scotland as defence jobs are repatriated to England. Even if the same workers do them they will be in England (which is likely to have a lower tax regime than Scotland and will thus attract those who have a choice of where to live and pay tax) and this will reduce Scotland's tax revenues. They will also spend their money, largely, in England, so Scotland will lose the defence jobs, the income tax, corporation tax and VAT generated from them and the indirect economy they currently support. The transitional period will only be long enough to complete existing projects so someone will have to act fast to replace them, while the SNP wants to get rid of the nuclear submarines and the jobs they support fast.
What defence jobs are we talking about? I've already pointed out that Scotland does not get an above population share of MoD contracts. An independent Scotland would have an army, navy, airforce etc. If we're talking in pure economic terms, axing Trident would save money, not cost it.

On hidden subsidies, one interesting example is the very topical Royal Mail. Customers in the more densely populated UK will no longer be paying a hidden subsidy to the more expensive delivery costs in the highlands and islands of Scotland; but a much smaller number of Scots will. Only a tiny proportion of UK mail travels north into Scotland, other than foreign mail which, for all I know, probably comes in via London and gets shipped north. So I'd expect postal costs might rise substantially in Scotland, though only a true optimist would expect a reduction in the UK.

I'm guessing that, because of the geography, other costs are disproportionately higher in Scotland - things like electricity distribution. Many of these hidden higher costs are currently shared with a very large number of consumers in England because everyone pays similar prices. But this will cease on independence. This is what I mean by hidden subsidies. They are paid by consumers and they don't touch government spending and revenue figures.
That actually is a fair point.



Of course, but a substantial portion of those in Scotland deal only with English tax. I guess that no tax office in England deals with Scottish companies' tax so Scotland has an over-supply of tax offices. I expect a similar effect will be seen in other departments as other government jobs were moved to the north of England, Wales and Scotland in the interests of regional development (and the Scottish ones will have to move back) while a much smaller amount of government work directly on behalf of Scotland is performed in England. Maybe those Edinburgh-based tax workers can be sent abroad to form the Scottish diplomatic service. They'd love that.
Have you got any idea how many people in Scotland work on exclusivly rUK tac etc and how many civil servants doing a similar job and independent Scotland would need. I don't and I assue neither do you, but you're just assuming there would be mass unemployment after a Yes vote?
0
Maths Tutor
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#3463
Report 6 years ago
#3463
You went into hiding in England after posting some UTTER NONSENSE but have now re-surfaced in the hope that your HYPOCRISY AND LIES have been forgotten. They haven't.

(Original post by Maths Tutor)
So you are now accepting that Margaret Curran was talking UTTER NONSENSE about her son becoming a 'foreigner' in the event of Scottish independence?
(Original post by L i b)
Er, no. I have no idea where you got that from.
I had provided the relevant quotes but am happy to so again:

(Original post by Maths Tutor)
What do you think of 'Better Together's Margaret Curran's claim that her son living in England will become a 'foreigner' if Scotland becomes independent?
(Original post by L i b)
More or less a fact. There is a good chance we will no longer share the bonds of citizenship with people in the rest of our country if Scotland votes to break away. Even if by a legal quirk we all retain British citizenship, we are no longer part of the same civic project. That, to me, is a thoroughly backward move.
(Original post by Gordon1985)
But I think we can all agree that has absolutely no bearing on personal relatinships like mother/son?

Why does this cooperation you're talking about need to be civic? Why can't it be international? Do people even really feel like everyone in a nation state is 'working together' or 'cooperating'? I don't and I doubt many do.
(Original post by L i b)
As I've said, save for humanity - which doesn't really seem to resonate with many - civic bonds are the only think that unites significant numbers of people. There is literally no other way in which that has ever been accomplished.

And I am happy to agree with your first point.

That's not nationalism, that's citizenship.
Gordon1985's first point, which you are "happy to agree with" is that the personal relationship between Margaret Curran and her son WOULD NOT CHANGE after Independence. He WOULD NOT BECOME A FOREIGNER to Margaret Curran. Margaret Curran WAS TALKING NONSENSE.

This discussion was all about Margaret Curran's nonsense.

Margaret Curran WAS NOT talking about Cameron, Osborne and Clegg becoming 'foreigners' to her. She was talking about HER SON becoming a foreigner to her. She was talking about "personal relationships like mother/son", the point that was made by Gordon1985.

So tell us, what did you understand by Gordon1985's first point, which you are "happy to agree with"?
0
Maths Tutor
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#3464
Report 6 years ago
#3464
(Original post by Midlander)
Which was my point-economically Scotland wouldn't be missed. That Westminster are trying hard to retain it must be because they aren't conspiring against it.
According to NO Scotland's George Robertson, speaking at the Abertay debate, Scotland doesn't have language or culture. So Scotland won't be missed for that either.

So tell us in what way Scotland WOULD be missed by Westminster, if any?
0
Maths Tutor
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#3465
Report 6 years ago
#3465
(Original post by Midlander)
Scotland's population makes up less than 10% of the UK population so the total deficit is obviously smaller. What remains is that according to the SNP's own figures the country loses billions even with its oil claim.

That deficit won't go away.
(Original post by Gordon1985)
Well it's obviously %age deficits that matter, isn't it. Scotland's %age defiicit is continually lower than the UK average.
(Original post by Midlander)
It helps that the Barnett formula gives Scotland disproportionately more money than it should.
(Original post by Gordon1985)
In what way does it do that.

Scotland's %age contribution to the Uk treasury is higher than it's %age of UK spending. In what way does Scotland get more money than it should?
Midlander doesn't even have a basic understanding of how these things are compared.

First of all, percentages are compared, not absolute numbers. No one is comparing Scotland's "total deficit". (Midlander can, like Trigger, say "well I am".)

Scotland's budget deficit is the difference between what Scotland raises in taxes and what it spends and is spent on its behalf by Westminster. The same applies to the UK as a whole.

Scotland's budget deficit as a % of Scotland's revenues is, as Gordon1985 points out, "continually lower" than the rUK budget deficit as a % of rUK revenues. I had provided some exact workings earlier on this thread.

Whatever the Barnet formula 'gives' to Scotland, is first of all, only a small fraction of the revenues raised in Scotland.

Secondly, whatever the Barnet formula 'gives' to Scotland gets counted as Scotland's expenditure in the figures. It doesn't affect rUK figures in the accounts.

The Scottish government does not run any deficit at all - it spends exactly what it gets - but it decides how to spend it on devolved matters like education and health. It has recently been given borrowing powers but I don't think it has used them yet.

So Scotland's budget deficit is actually created by the Westminster government, not by the Scottish government.

Scotland's share of the cost of the UK's weapons of mass destruction, illegal wars, failed IT systems, failed ID schemes, BBC budgets which are not used in Scotland etc, etc, etc all count as part of the Scottish deficit and Westminster is 100% responsible for that.

Even if Scotland has a deficit after independence, it will be lower than rUK's deficit.

And tell us, which developed country doesn't currently have a budget deficit, starting with the USA.

The Scots are NOT getting free prescriptions, free university education and free care for the elderly at rUK's expense. They are getting it from their own money.

These are all facts that can be verified by looking at official figures, not 'cherry picked' figures.

The anti-Independence camp is deliberately giving the impression that rUK (meaning England) subsidises Scotland to terrify the Scots into voting No.
0
Maths Tutor
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#3466
Report 6 years ago
#3466
(Original post by MatureStudent36)
At the moment the UK has access to lower interest rates than Norway.
Can you prove that?

What interest rate does the UK borrow at?

What interest rate does Norway borrow at?
0
Maths Tutor
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#3467
Report 6 years ago
#3467
(Original post by Good bloke)
I'm unclear why you put new in inverted commas; there is no doubt Scotland will be a new state.
What was Scotland 307 years ago?

A region? A province?

No, it was a state, a nation in its own right. And it will revert to that status after independence.

That is why Scotland will NOT be a 'new' state as claimed by those in the anti-Independence camp.

If Northern Ireland one day becomes independent, you can call it a new state because it never existed as a state before.

Regarding Scotland's membership about the EU, now that L i b has resurfaced from hiding after posting UTTER NONSENSE about it (read it in full a few pages back instead of cherry picking), I will seek answers from him soon.
0
Maths Tutor
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#3468
Report 6 years ago
#3468
(Original post by Midlander)
England isn't run by anybody as it has no autonomy.
Are you COMPLETELY IGNORANT or are you DELIBERATELY MISLEADING?

Almost every single post of yours includes such ignorant comments.

England is run by Westminster and the vast majority of Westminster MPs are from England.

As has been pointed out only rarely and very briefly has there been a government at Westminster that didn't have a majority in England.
0
Maths Tutor
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#3469
Report 6 years ago
#3469
(Original post by L i b)
Where's this extra spending coming from exactly?



Because it seems fairly obvious to me that Scotland should get broadly the same per capita as the rest of the UK - instead it gets over £1,000 more for every single person spent on public services.

If anything, if the claims of Scotland's wealth which the SNP make are remotely true (that, say, it is the third best performing region, behind London and the South East) then Scotland should get less than average.

Naturally there is an excuse for raising a baseline figure to account for remoter populations and all that sort of stuff, but the fundamental point that Scotland gets more than it should in public spending is, I feel, very well made.
Where does that extra £1,000 come from:

- From Scotland's revenues? What is the problem then?

- From England / rUK's revenues? Does England / rUK subsidise Scotland?

- From Borrowed Money? Is that counted as part of Scotland's deficit or rUK's deficit?
0
Maths Tutor
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#3470
Report 6 years ago
#3470
(Original post by Good bloke)
That is easy to answer. Norway had, and has, one of the most highly taxed economies in the world, and it doesn't use the oil revenues to pay for current spending. For instance, standard VAT is 25% (15% in the UK), with 15% on food (nil in the UK). Income tax is relatively high, national insurance payments are very high and there are taxes on wealth.
The people of Norway pay high taxes but are still one of the richest people in the world. The country runs without a deficit while excluding oil revenues.

So where does Norway's wealth and prosperity come from?
0
Good bloke
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#3471
Report 6 years ago
#3471
(Original post by Maths Tutor)
The people of Norway pay high taxes but are still one of the richest people in the world. The country runs without a deficit while excluding oil revenues.

So where does Norway's wealth and prosperity come from?
It must be Scotland.
0
Maths Tutor
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#3472
Report 6 years ago
#3472
(Original post by Good bloke)
Try not to let the bile cloud your reasoning. I made two separate statements, that Scotland (currently and by any reasonable definition at least) probably isn't directly subsidised by England, and that the south-east of England probably subsidises the rest of the UK. There is nothing contradictory about that, I'd be surprised if it were controversial and it makes perfect sense. If you are unable to work out why you aren't worth talking to. Such matters are, anyway not relevant to whether Scots should vote for independence.
Like it or not, they ARE contradictory statements.

If Scotland is NOT subsidised by England, then the south east of England DOES NOT subsidise the rest of the UK because that would include Scotland. Scotland IS NOT subsidised by anyone, not even by the south east of England.


(Original post by Good bloke)
Such matters are, anyway not relevant to whether Scots should vote for independence.

This matter is very much relevant to Scots voting for or against independence.

In fact that is the ONLY MESSAGE of NO Scotland - Scotland cannot stand on its own feet.

It doesn't dare say it directly, but NO Scotland's ONLY MESSAGE is: Scotland is subsidised by England.

An of course oil, is the biggest problem for an independent Scotland.
0
Midlander
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#3473
Report 6 years ago
#3473
(Original post by Maths Tutor)
According to NO Scotland's George Robertson, speaking at the Abertay debate, Scotland doesn't have language or culture. So Scotland won't be missed for that either.

So tell us in what way Scotland WOULD be missed by Westminster, if any?
A desire to co-operate rather than maintain 700 year old grudges? It's difficult to see why when people like you are sniping at it for funding the deficit Scotland creates every year.
0
Midlander
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#3474
Report 6 years ago
#3474
(Original post by Maths Tutor)
Are you COMPLETELY IGNORANT or are you DELIBERATELY MISLEADING?

Almost every single post of yours includes such ignorant comments.

England is run by Westminster and the vast majority of Westminster MPs are from England.

As has been pointed out only rarely and very briefly has there been a government at Westminster that didn't have a majority in England.
What is misleading about the statement that England has no self governing powers? The Scots have their own government appointed to administer their own affairs, which England doesn't have. That isn't misleading, it's a fact.
0
Midlander
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#3475
Report 6 years ago
#3475
(Original post by Maths Tutor)
Midlander doesn't even have a basic understanding of how these things are compared.

First of all, percentages are compared, not absolute numbers. No one is comparing Scotland's "total deficit". (Midlander can, like Trigger, say "well I am".)

Scotland's budget deficit is the difference between what Scotland raises in taxes and what it spends and is spent on its behalf by Westminster. The same applies to the UK as a whole.

Scotland's loss is quite simply the excess that is spent beyond its own budget. If it were spent 'on its behalf', then Westminster could have an unlimited tab and charge it to the Scottish Government.


Scotland's budget deficit as a % of Scotland's revenues is, as Gordon1985 points out, "continually lower" than the rUK budget deficit as a % of rUK revenues. I had provided some exact workings earlier on this thread.

As has been demonstrated on this thread Scotland's economy is at least somewhat reliant on being part of the UK for a variety of different sectors. Assuming that things will stay the same post independence is a total fallacy.


Whatever the Barnet formula 'gives' to Scotland, is first of all, only a small fraction of the revenues raised in Scotland.

Secondly, whatever the Barnet formula 'gives' to Scotland gets counted as Scotland's expenditure in the figures. It doesn't affect rUK figures in the accounts.

The Scottish government does not run any deficit at all - it spends exactly what it gets - but it decides how to spend it on devolved matters like education and health. It has recently been given borrowing powers but I don't think it has used them yet.

Garbage. SNP figures show that Scotland loses billions a year inclusive of hypothetical oil claims.


So Scotland's budget deficit is actually created by the Westminster government, not by the Scottish government.
More garbage.

Scotland's share of the cost of the UK's weapons of mass destruction, illegal wars, failed IT systems, failed ID schemes, BBC budgets which are not used in Scotland etc, etc, etc all count as part of the Scottish deficit and Westminster is 100% responsible for that.

And English students' tuition fees in England count as extra expenditure for Scotland-it goes both ways.


Even if Scotland has a deficit after independence, it will be lower than rUK's deficit.

According to you it doesn't have one.


And tell us, which developed country doesn't currently have a budget deficit, starting with the USA.

Comparing Scotland with the USA is absurd.

The Scots are NOT getting free prescriptions, free university education and free care for the elderly at rUK's expense. They are getting it from their own money.
They get it by ripping off all RUK consumers and voting to get RUK students to pay tuition fees.

These are all facts that can be verified by looking at official figures, not 'cherry picked' figures.

The anti-Independence camp is deliberately giving the impression that rUK (meaning England) subsidises Scotland to terrify the Scots into voting No.

RUK does not mean England, unless you're Mr Salmond. To say otherwise does a disservice to Wales and NI, which Salmond is quite happy to do with his divisive rhetoric.

Of course Scotland has no deficit, indeed one of the world's wealthiest nations according to the head bigot. That would be why Scotland has Europe's worst obesity figures, an education system panned by teachers nationwide, and economic deprivation in its own back yard.

Salmond is trying to con Scots into accepting his falsehoods to satisfy his personal agenda. He doesn't care about the consequences.
0
Aj12
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#3476
Report 6 years ago
#3476
(Original post by Choo.choo)
Some very good reasons why I am totally for an independent Scotland.

A lot of people against independence are quite ignorant if they believe all Scotland has is oil and whiskey; they forget about technology, engineering, gas, renewable energy, fish, tourism, deep sea ports, manufacture, international distribution hub, financial services, I could go on and on. Plus the fact is Scotland is the only country which pays more into the U.K. than it receives in return.

If Scotland is independent and has an independent currency then it can deflate the value of its currency to attract foreign business to set up employment opportunities in Scotland. It could also give reduced rates for businesses to set up in Scotland. This scenario is exactly what Cameron and the Tories are afraid of as business and jobs would migrate to Scotland. Loss of the current control would have a huge impact on England. Control of the oil revenue would also help to provide for the loss in income to the Scots treasury by these measures especially since the reduced value of the Scottish currency would mean each barrel would deliver more Scottish currency to the Scottish Government.

For a country who only have 5 million people, Scotland have enough business and industry to sustain themselves and for the country to be wealthy. Scotland is the 6th largest financial center in Europe, with Edinburgh providing many finacial services. If Scotland were to become independent they would be entitled to 80-90 percents of the UK's oil, whilst also nuclear and renewable power is also a large industry. Scotland exports whiskey, meat (from cattle and sheep) and electronics whilst the tourist industry is booming (especially with Americans visiting the highlands.) If Scotland was to become independent, the country would be able to have complete control over issues such as government spending and the country would be more efficient due Scotlands needs being put first, not all the english MPs in Westminster. Scotland are at first and likely to remain with the british pound as their currency; if they were to change to the euro, this would make the pound weaker and also given the EU crisis scotland's economy worse. Scotland would remove the nuclear weapons stored in Scotland, and would have a smaller military as they would withdraw from Afghanistan and only send soldiers in for NATO missions (very much like the nordic countries).
Scotland will either have the pound or the euro where has the idea of an independent currency come from?

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
Choo.choo
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#3477
Report 6 years ago
#3477
(Original post by Aj12)
Scotland will either have the pound or the euro where has the idea of an independent currency come from?

Posted from TSR Mobile
It's a possibility.
I think we should keep the British pound, and definitely not the euro.
0
Aj12
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#3478
Report 6 years ago
#3478
(Original post by Choo.choo)
It's a possibility.
I think we should keep the British pound, and definitely not the euro.
Have any SNP politicians said it is a possibility? I was under the impression their plan was for the pound to be kept. As for the Euro Scotland wants to join the EU so it's debatable if they will get a choice in the matter.
0
Choo.choo
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#3479
Report 6 years ago
#3479
(Original post by Aj12)
Have any SNP politicians said it is a possibility? I was under the impression their plan was for the pound to be kept. As for the Euro Scotland wants to join the EU so it's debatable if they will get a choice in the matter.
The Norwegians kept their own currency. I think we will keep the British pound.
I don't think Scotland wants to join the euro. The euro is a sinking ship.
The SNP got a majority vote in 2011 because the Scots knew that they could then get a referendum on independence.
0
FinalMH
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#3480
Report 6 years ago
#3480
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-24476764

If anyone is interested
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Have you made up your mind on your five uni choices?

Yes I know where I'm applying (129)
64.82%
No I haven't decided yet (41)
20.6%
Yes but I might change my mind (29)
14.57%

Watched Threads

View All