SNP Win - The Economics of D-I-V-O-R-C-E

Kohoutek

It's difficult to see how an independent Scottish government could monetise Scotland's renewable energy potential to the same extent the UK government has with Scotland's oil reserves.

There's a limit to how much tax arbitrage oil companies can do because oil is a very geographically limited resource, so governments can get away with very high taxes on oil production and royalty rates.

This isn't the case with renewables. Despite the fact that Scotland has very good renewable energy potential, if the government taxed renewable energy providers too much, I'm sure all these foreign conglomerates active in Scotland like GE and Mitsubishi would start looking to invest elsewhere. Similarly, if electricity imports from Scotland to England were priced at a premium to imports from France, Norway etc or to domestic production, then surely England wouldn't make itself dependent on Scotland for electricity?

pbouk

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Awww you're a trier aren't you luvvie.. and I like you and your tenacity, even if you really haven't bothered to read most of the thread. You couldn't possibly have done. Or you'd know that most of the thread focused on renewables and not oil. Mabye go back and start again ??? xxx

sorry but the thread is about independence and oil was brought up in the thread oil has peaked 10 yrs ago FACT. as for renewables first of all you have to pay for it secondly you will find that it will not generate enough energy at the present time, otherwise all nations would be 100% green.

the post was origionally about scottish i dont need to read the posts again as i was here from day 1.

it was so funny watching Question Time in scotland last night, Lord Forsyth said alex salmond "the reason you wont hold a vote for independence today is because you know you would lose" and the whole audience( which was mainly scottish) started clapping. michael moore said the same thing .

david dimbleby said scotland takes over £1000 per head more than people in england , so straight away the old "but scotlands oil contributes to uk economy" . OK so lets just say that the oil is scotlands(it isnt) but lets just say it is, so how has scotland contributed its SHARE to the uk economy 200 years before oil was being drilled in north sea? i would say not enough.:beer:

Shakethedisease

Setting up a new country from scratch won't come cheap plus Scotland will presumably inherit the UK's pension liability problem as well as a chunky although not entirely unmanageable on the books national debt.

Add on wholly unrealistic expectations for the future and the loss of the subsidy from London (London's output/head is about 50% more than Scotland's according to the ONS) and if I were a Scot I'd be pretty concerned about the outcome.

Of course Scots are concerned. However, setting up a 'new country' from scratch ? That's just luducrious. Scotland is already devolved and has seperate systems for so many things already. And yet again Scotland taking on it's share of the 'debt' ? Wouldn't they also recieve the 'assets' too should independence take place ? And why are the expectations for the future wholly 'unrealistic' ? Just because you say so ? Or is there conclusive evidence that you can show to the contrary. I have tried to show the potentials out there and the current appetite for them world-wide ( climate change/green energy £££'s etc ) and pointed out other much larger countries following the same path economically/energy wise.

You don't think England will be in the same boat at all, no ? That England will somehow magically trangress it's own much larger share of the currrent national debts and pension liabilities ? What is it that places England, with it's vastly larger population and immigration levels, in such a stronger position going in to the future ? London and it's financial services ? Tourism ? Oil/Gas/Renewables, House prices ? You may want to chew on that, and how England would do in the future without Scotland and ( as mentioned), the apparently fast declining UK oil industry.. before throwing current common denominators such as 'national debts' and pension liabilities in there. These problems are not confined to Scotland alone. England per head will also have it's share to worry about too.

Generali wrote: »

I notice that you're not very interested in picking up on how Scotland is going to pay to move to 100% renewable electricity let alone put in the infrastructure needed to run cars, buses and lorries off electricity.

Ummm mabye the oil that's left ? Corporation taxes devolved, Crown Estate revenues, devolved tax raising powers ? Whisky, tourism, bio-fuels, carbon capture technology investments. Who knows yet. Look, I'm no ecomomist. But assume that Alex Salmond ( and the SNP ) aren't making up things as they go along. Not least because Salmond IS an oil/energy economist and he and his party's sole purpose and core reason for it's very existence, has been looking towards and driving towards independence for 50 odd years now. I think just mabye, they might have thought just a teeny wee bit about how they might go about that AND Scotland prospering from it. Don't you ?

It's difficult to see how an independent Scottish government could monetise Scotland's renewable energy potential to the same extent the UK government has with Scotland's oil reserves.

I think that oil will still play a part for a fair few years yet. And think Westminster knows it. Hence..

Lord Forsyth said alex salmond "the reason you wont hold a vote for independence today is because you know you would lose" and the whole audience( which was mainly scottish) started clapping. michael moore said the same thing .

...The nonsensical desperation in trying to keep Scotland part of the UK, trying to move referendum goalposts, David Cameron heading up 'dedicated committee's' and lots of talk of Westminster muscling in to 'call the shots' ( in order to make an independence victory much less likely).....when most English are quite happy really to see the back of the Scots. Desperate to see the SNP lose are we Lord Forsyth ?.. and keep Scotland part of the UK when all they are seen to do is 'dine off the largesse of the English taxpayer' Mr Moore ?

Why would that be ? They're very keen to hold on to some scrounging crappy little country of 5 million that has ONE Tory MP and has been keeping Labour propped up in Westminster for the last 40, and Oil that will only last another 10 years apparently. You work it out. There's a piece of the jigsaw missing somewhere...

Am still undecided myself, but hate to see a one-sided debate.:)

pbouk

put your dummy back in.:beer:

neverdespairgirl

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Why would that be ? They're very keen to hold on to some scrounging crappy little country of 5 million that has ONE Tory MP and has been keeping Labour propped up in Westminster for the last 40, and Oil that will only last another 10 years apparently. You work it out. There's a piece of the jigsaw missing somewhere...

The missing piece is the "Unionist" idea of the Tory party.

tartanterra

Many of the posts on here ignore the blindingly obvious.

Turkeys don't vote for Christmas.
Even Alex Salmond realises that Scots won't vote for full independence. It would be Culloden all over again.
When left to our own devices, all we seem to do is fight with each other. We can't seem to help it; it's part of our culture.

Look at the first few months of the new Scottish Parlaiment, when most of the time was taken up with fighting about who got which office in the new building. It's the way we've always been.

Personally, I have always believed that we would be at each others throats the minute the English were off the scene. With all the history between our two countries, it's always been so convenient to have the English to blame for all of Scotlands woes.
If we weren't bound to England any more, who could we unite against to blame when things don't go our way?

Although I am an "economic refugee" (Thank you for that, Mrs Thatcher!) living down South, I'm still Scottish through and through and extremely proud of my country's history and (global) achievements. It pains me to write this, but I, like many of my fellow Scots realise that real power lies in the continuity of the Union and independence is not really a viable option.

Generali

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Of course Scots are concerned. However, setting up a 'new country' from scratch ? That's just luducrious. Scotland is already devolved and has seperate systems for so many things already.

Scotland has no military or command structure, no foreign policy or embassies, no membership of any international bodies, no genuine fiscal policy, no central bank, no web addresses, no system of elections (elections are run by the Scotland Office), no way to set constituency boundaries, no constitution.

Just because you have 'highers' and 'not proven' doesn't make Scotland a country. Tony Blair famously compared the Scottish Assembly to a parish council. That was probably unfair but it did make a good point that it isn't a proper Government.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

And yet again Scotland taking on it's share of the 'debt' ? Wouldn't they also recieve the 'assets' too should independence take place ?

Presumably they would. Most Government assets don't provide an income however so they aren't that much use to fund liabilities unless sold. As the Scottish people tend to elect left wing representatives makes me think those assets are unlikely to be sold.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

And why are the expectations for the future wholly 'unrealistic' ? Just because you say so ? Or is there conclusive evidence that you can show to the contrary. I have tried to show the potentials out there and the current appetite for them world-wide ( climate change/green energy £££'s etc ) and pointed out other much larger countries following the same path economically/energy wise.

Where will the 100% of GDP that I estimate the conversion of Scotland to renewables come from? I've shown my working. You've provided a bunch of fluffy quotes from people that seem to be dreaming, frankly.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

You don't think England will be in the same boat at all, no ? That England will somehow magically trangress it's own much larger share of the currrent national debts and pension liabilities ? What is it that places England, with it's vastly larger population and immigration levels, in such a stronger position going in to the future ? London and it's financial services ? Tourism ? Oil/Gas/Renewables, House prices ? You may want to chew on that, and how England would do in the future without Scotland and ( as mentioned), the apparently fast declining UK oil industry.. before throwing current common denominators such as 'national debts' and pension liabilities in there. These problems are not confined to Scotland alone. England per head will also have it's share to worry about too.

I do think England will end up in the same boat. The UK can't afford to pay for the promises she has made. If you slice up the country then that doesn't make that problem go away.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Ummm mabye the oil that's left ? Corporation taxes devolved, Crown Estate revenues, devolved tax raising powers ? Whisky, tourism, bio-fuels, carbon capture technology investments. Who knows yet. Look, I'm no ecomomist. But assume that Alex Salmond ( and the SNP ) aren't making up things as they go along. Not least because Salmond IS an oil/energy economist and he and his party's sole purpose and core reason for it's very existence, has been looking towards and driving towards independence for 50 odd years now. I think just mabye, they might have thought just a teeny wee bit about how they might go about that AND Scotland prospering from it. Don't you ?

Well I am an economist and it makes little difference if taxes go directly to the Scottish Government as a Sovereign entity or get routed via Westminster and spent in Scotland on behalf of the UK Government by non-sovereign Government bodies. I guess there could be a small saving to be made by losing the Whitehall layer of Government. I can't imagine that is huge.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

I think that oil will still play a part for a fair few years yet. And think Westminster knows it. Hence..



...The nonsensical desperation in trying to keep Scotland part of the UK, trying to move referendum goalposts, David Cameron heading up 'dedicated committee's' and lots of talk of Westminster muscling in to 'call the shots' ( in order to make an independence victory much less likely).....when most English are quite happy really to see the back of the Scots. Desperate to see the SNP lose are we Lord Forsyth ?.. and keep Scotland part of the UK when all they are seen to do is 'dine off the largesse of the English taxpayer' Mr Moore ?

Why would that be ? They're very keen to hold on to some scrounging crappy little country of 5 million that has ONE Tory MP and has been keeping Labour propped up in Westminster for the last 40, and Oil that will only last another 10 years apparently. You work it out. There's a piece of the jigsaw missing somewhere...

Am still undecided myself, but hate to see a one-sided debate.:)

The Tories support The Union as a matter of ideology. I'm yet to meet one that wants to keep Scotland in The Union to annoy them or to nick all their oil. The Tories were Unionists before North Sea oil and they remain so. E.g.:

Shakethedisease

The missing piece is the "Unionist" idea of the Tory party.

The Tories support The Union as a matter of ideology.

Oh now. Some people on here really need to do their homework. It would have taken you all of 3 seconds, (like I did), to see that the 'Unionist' part of the 'Conservative and Unionist' party has absolutely !!!!!! all to do with 'keeping Scotland in the Uk' nor any misty-eyed ideology. It was the Irish they were talking about, 125 years ago !?

The origins of the Scottish Unionist Party lie in the 1886 split of the British Liberal Party with the emergence of the Liberal Unionists under Joseph Chamberlain. The 'Union' in question was the 1801 Irish Union, not that of 1707. Prior to this, the only Tory/Conservative party in Scotland was the official Conservative Party, which had never achieved parity with the dominant Whig and Scottish Liberal Party ascendancy since the election reforms of 1832.

<-- They merged with the Conservatives later on.

Nice plaque. But not relevant and quite wrong I'm afraid. Shame the Tories keep emphasising this part of their name up here as it's under complete false pretences.

Scotland has no military or command structure, no foreign policy or embassies, no membership of any international bodies, no genuine fiscal policy, no central bank, no web addresses, no system of elections (elections are run by the Scotland Office), no way to set constituency boundaries, no constitution.

It does have quite a body of Scottish regiments etc and !!!!!! is a 'command structure'.. someone in charge overall ? Well how hard would that be? And appointing a Scottish defence minister.. oh gosh that would so hard to do without being part of the UK ? Wouldn't it ? ( not ).
Foreign policy, the SNP certainly have quite a LOT to say about that and it involves, well, lets just say Iraq and Libya aren't the most 'popular' of their hypothetical choices. Embassies ? Rent them, share them like other countries do ? There's absolutely no need to build big white 'mini-Whitehouses' in every country is there. So that's not exactly unsermountable and, really, hardly worth mentioning imho.

No membership of any international bodies.. well am not sure what barriers would be in place there. At best instantly accepted since they've been 'part' of one for a long time.. and at worst will have to apply again ? The Scots have close ties to the US and other EU countries, we're not exactly talking about Albania here.:)

No genuine fiscal policy.. well, that actually depends on the Scotland Bill doesn't it ? Which I've mentioned many times on this thread already. So is an unknown. Since devolution, nothing has gone any further forward than the 'Barnett formula'. Much to everyone's dismay as it causes so much bitterness. We'll have to see how that goes. But a more devolved/autonomous fiscal policy is one of the things that is at the core the the SNP manifesto. You can't accuse someone/something of 'having no fiscal policy', when they're being blocked from having one. That's really bad reasoning and makes no sense whatsoever.

Central banks.. well Scotland's not exactly short of them. Banks anyway.

No web adresses.. oh please don't make me laugh. In a few years we'll be able to type in .cocacola and .nike and .xxx . I've bought and sold domains for a living so, no, this wouldn't be a barrier to indpendence, nor would it come at any great cost.

No system of elections ? What's that all about then ? You saying any Scottish government wouldn't be able to hold an election or work out the results unless it was part of the Uk ? I don't get you at ALL on this one. Even the election's up here work on completely different systems from the UK general FTP one's .

Elections to the Scottish Parliament are by the Additional Member System, which is a hybrid of single member plurality and party list

You don't think a Scottish Government could handle that by themselves ? Since, errrm, that's exactly what they have been doing ? Why would they need to remain in the Uk to do the above ? Do enlighten.

No constituency borders. You really are grasping at straws there. Or else my current MSP would be completely lost wouldn't she ? Of course there are already well defined borders and consituencies ! Just nonsense to say otherwise.

No constitution. Think again.

In September 2002, the Scottish National Party (SNP) published a document, entitled "A Constitution for a Free Scotland", which details their policy for the Constitution of a future independent Scotland. This Constitution, which would come into effect following Scotland's transition to independence, would set out the rights of citizens of an independent Scotland, and define the powers and responsibilities of government and parliament.

And as for this ?

Just because you have 'highers' and 'not proven' doesn't make Scotland a country.

I'll leave that for you to explain to everyone why Scotland is not a country and what you would actually define it as then. Am really looking forward to that ! If you dare..

Can't be bothered with the rest as I've been through them all several times already in this thread tbh.. But on the whole, after reading your own reply to my post.. then it seems I'm not the only one capable of coming out with 'fluffy' nonsense and quotes. ie ' no constituencies, command 'structure' and no Web addresses ??!!! lol...

Generali

Check again on Unionism. The Conservative Party has long been the 'Village Green Preservation Society' (eg link, link, link).

A command structure is who can give the orders in a war. Who is commander in chief? Who gives the orders if (s)he can't? How do you know the order that claims to come from the CinC actually does? It's a (the?) fundamental part of a millitary structure.

The list isn't meant to be exhaustive, it's just a small number of the things that Scotland will need to do to go from being a nation to being a country.

Examples of entities that are not countries include: Hong Kong, Bermuda, Greenland, Puerto Rico, and most notably the constituent parts of the United Kingdom. (Northern Ireland, Wales, Scotland, and England are not countries.)

The Scotland Office runs the elections to the Scottish Assembly (link).

The list I gave earlier was just a few things that came to mind. I realise that many of these Scotland can't do because she isn't allowed, that was my point. Here is a full list of things that Scotland cannot do because she can't. Those are all things that will cost both time and money to set up and won't come cheap.

Just because the SNP has a wish list for a constitution, doesn't mean that Scotland has a constitution. For example, the SNP has decided the Queen will be Head of State. Has anyone asked her if she wants the job? I'm sure she would be delighted but it would be a sensible precaution to check with her first. It could save a lot of embarassment when the first Bill is sent to be signed into law.

In addition, you don't just rock up to international institutions and take a seat. Scotland would have to negotiate the cost of entry to institutions, powers, rights, obligations and so on. I suspect it would be unlikely for Scotland to take the UK's seat on the Security Council for example.

Where do you think the money for all of this will come from? That's before your 100% of GDP that someone is going to borrow from somewhere in order to fulfill a fantasy of Scotland being self sufficient in renewable energy any time in the near future.

If the people of Scotland want to be independent then they should become independent. I don't think there are too many that would argue for Scotland being forced to remain in The Union. To pretend that it's going to be easy, cheap or a panacea for Scotland's problems is to fail to understand the undertaking.

tomterm8

I've never heard anyone explain how Scotland could finance itself after north sea oil runs out. Never. It is actually a hard problem even at the UK level to work this out, but the Scottish nationalists always seem to just explain that something magical is going to happen. And then talk about clearances.