Effect of Scottish Independence Vote

ColdIron

The Betfair market has drifted out from 1.23 to 1.33 for No in the last 10 days, or in other words from 81% likelyhood of winning to 75%

BTW I think that last spike you can see is a case of butterfingers and somewhere right now there is someone saying 'Doh!'

http://uk.site.sports.betfair.com/betting/LoadRunnerInfoAction.do?marketId=110033387&selectionId=5334893&timeZone=Europe/London&region=GBR&locale=en&brand=betfair&currency=GBP

TCA

rpc wrote: »

That describes pretty much the whole white paper. We are told that an independent Scotland will be able to fix problems that other governments of all colours struggle with (and some of the issues are already devolved) but we aren't told how. Just that "we can do it with the powers of independence."

I doubt you'll get the kind of answers in the detail you're looking for. Nobody is able to predict the negotiations that would follow a Yes vote, so uncertainty will remain at voting time. That unfortunately is the nature of the beast. It'll come down to whether Scottish voters believe that they are better served from Holyrood or better served from Westminster.

I'll generalise and say the Scots as a nation are great at talking themselves down. The disbelief in their own ability is staggering at times. The fear factor is exactly what the No campaign thrives on. How could the Scots possibly do anything better than the UK government? The damned cheek of it!

I want rid of nuclear weapons in Scotland, not to participate in every war/incursion that the UK follows the US into, and I want a government that we vote for, whatever colour it is. As for everything else, I don't see why Scotland would necessarily make a worse job of it than Westminster.

Thrugelmir

TCA wrote: »

I doubt you'll get the kind of answers in the detail you're looking for. Nobody is able to predict the negotiations that would follow a Yes vote, so uncertainty will remain at voting time. That unfortunately is the nature of the beast. It'll come down to whether Scottish voters believe that they are better served from Holyrood or better served from Westminster.

Nothing to do with negotiations. It's akin to pretending to be a football manager by playing FIFA 2014. Promising unfunded policies as a sweetner is total nonsense. This is a life changing event. Get it wrong and the consequences could be dire.

TCA

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Promising unfunded policies as a sweetner is total nonsense.

Government spending is funded by tax revenues and borrowing. The UK government is something like £1.3 trillion in debt. How do you think they've been funding their policies over the last twenty years? Not exactly a hard act to follow.

That aside, you're assuming a vote for independence is a vote for the SNP. Or if you just think that an economically viable independent Scotland is impossible no matter who's in charge, then we'll agree to disagree. Scotland is comparatively a rich country and far less well-off small countries seem to get along just fine.

We're not all expecting the land of milk and honey as promised by some, but on the other hand we're not all expecting the Armageddon that others would have us believe in.

rpc

TCA wrote: »

I doubt you'll get the kind of answers in the detail you're looking for. Nobody is able to predict the negotiations that would follow a Yes vote, so uncertainty will remain at voting time. That unfortunately is the nature of the beast. It'll come down to whether Scottish voters believe that they are better served from Holyrood or better served from Westminster.

I'm not looking for answers to the really big questions (EU, currency, etc), but I would like to know how they will achieve some of the goals that Yes/SNP claim they could if only they had the powers of independence.

Two for starters (there are plenty more):
How will they increase the low Scottish life expectancy?
How will they reduce child poverty?

In recent weeks, Yes have claimed that Westminster is failing us on both and these problems can be solved with the powers of independence. What they refuse to tell us is the detail of how they will achieve that. To me the first would be handled with powers already devolved and the second is a problem nobody else is managing to solve.

Either they choose not to reveal the answers, even though the answers would significantly strengthen the case for Yes, or they don't have any and these are wild claims that they will not be able to deliver on.

This has nothing to do with the negotiations - it is part of the vision for an independent Scotland. I suspect plenty of Western countries would be interested in the answers too!

The other policy answer that would be really useful is taxation. We are told about cuts to APD (whoop-de-doo, it only serves to get support from airlines) and corporation tax (the UK is cutting it too). And we are told that control of personal taxation is an important lever to be able to pull. What is their vision for personal taxation in an independent Scotland? The silence tells us all that we need to know.

A Penny For Scotland cost them votes, honesty on taxes now would do the same.

rpc

TCA wrote: »

We're not all expecting the land of milk and honey as promised by some, but on the other hand we're not all expecting the Armageddon that others would have us believe in.

It doesn't help that the current government are promising that land of milk and honey. Jim Sillars probably has a better argument than Alex Salmond.

I think Scotland would do quite well as an independent country. We have a lot going for us. We also benefit from the stability offered by the union without having to stifle our own capabilities. I think we are genuinely Better Together and I certainly believe that the small opportunities offered by a Yes vote are far far outweighed by the associated risks.

Archi_Bald

rpc wrote: »

And we are told that control of personal taxation is an important lever to be able to pull.
.

I read in the document that was linked earlier that Scotland will be able to set income tax from April 2016, anyway. This was news to me but the source is obviously official.

As part of the UK the Scottish Government will be able to set a Scottish rate of income tax from April 2016.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/297521/FInal_money_and_economy_pack.pdf

So there must have been debates over this, and some ideas on how these income tax might deviate from the rUK income tax.

TCA

rpc wrote: »

I think Scotland would do quite well as an independent country. We have a lot going for us. We also benefit from the stability offered by the union without having to stifle our own capabilities. I think we are genuinely Better Together and I certainly believe that the small opportunities offered by a Yes vote are far far outweighed by the associated risks.

You're saying Scotland would do quite well but are unwilling to chance it. For me the union does nothing but stifle us. The prospect of self-determination and the opportunity to make policies that are directly in our own interests, as opposed to a UK government who have to pander to a far greater audience (and do), is what appeals. For me these are massive opportunities, not small ones.

As for the stability of the UK, I'm not even sure what that means. The stability of getting a government Scotland never votes for, yes. An in/out referendum on the EU? That's about as unstable a situation as I can think of.

rpc

Archi_Bald wrote: »

I read in the document that was linked earlier that Scotland will be able to set income tax from April 2016, anyway. This was news to me but the source is obviously official.

Part of the gradual increase in devolved powers that has being going on since devolution. The block grant will be cut at the same time as tax setting powers are enhanced. The basic rate of income tax will be cut 10 points, with a corresponding reduction in the grant. Scotland will be left to make up the remainder as it sees fit.

It has been on the cards for quite some time.

TCA wrote: »

You're saying Scotland would do quite well but are unwilling to chance it.

We'd do quite well, but not as well as we can do as a part of the union is my view on it.

Most of the opportunities that are presented are not ones that can be realised. The EU, the electorate and macroeconomics all limit what any government can do. There is a reason that most political parties are rather closely grouped on the political spectrum - people won't vote for anything else.

Just because we can do it, doesn't mean we should do it.

The stability of getting a government Scotland never votes for, yes.

I'm pretty sure I have had a vote in all general elections since I turned 18. If Yes supporters forgot to register their vote, that is their problem.

If Edinburgh always returns MSPs from a party that never makes it into government, can Edinburgh become independent? There are plenty of Scots who vote Conservative. That they fail to elect many MPs is a failure of the FPTP voting system. In 2010, they were only narrowly behind the SNP and Lib Dems on overall percentage yet returned far fewer seats.

All independence will do is move the problem, it won't get rid of it. The needs of the central belt are very different to the highlands and islands. Heck, even Glasgow and Edinburgh are very different.

An in/out referendum on the EU? That's about as unstable a situation as I can think of.

If democracy is unstable, what is the alternative? I really don't understand why Yes are so opposed to the electorate being given a voice on important issues. I don't want to leave Europe, but I find it hard to argue that the electorate should be deprived of a voice when the only other routes are to vote for far-right parties. Such direct democracy is far from ideal for a number of reasons, but the popularity of parties such as UKIP suggests that people want to be heard.

If Yes really believe that rUK would exit Europe then they need a serious look at their plans. How could they (as good, well behaved members of the EU) have a currency union with a non-member state? How could they have the free trade and free travel they desire? They may not get those anyway, but if rUK withdraws then they definitely can't.

The proposed referendum is a risk whether Scotland votes Yes or No. If we vote Yes in September, we are deprived of our vote on UK membership of the EU.

TCA

rpc wrote: »

I'm pretty sure I have had a vote in all general elections since I turned 18. If Yes supporters forgot to register their vote, that is their problem.

If Edinburgh always returns MSPs from a party that never makes it into government, can Edinburgh become independent? There are plenty of Scots who vote Conservative. That they fail to elect many MPs is a failure of the FPTP voting system. In 2010, they were only narrowly behind the SNP and Lib Dems on overall percentage yet returned far fewer seats.

All independence will do is move the problem, it won't get rid of it. The needs of the central belt are very different to the highlands and islands. Heck, even Glasgow and Edinburgh are very different.

That's a pretty poor attempt to justify a Tory government to the Scots that never voted for them. I think you know that Scottish voters vote differently in UK elections than Scottish elections. Just flick forward a year to the Scottish elections in 2011 for proof of that. The Tories got less than 14% of the vote. FPTP, as you correctly identify, is unfair. Something thankfully that devolution has managed to address. The Tories get fair representation at Holyrood according to their vote. Not enough to govern Scotland from Westminster though.

You correctly identify the different needs of different geographic areas within Scotland. Do you really think there's a chance of those being addressed by Westminster? At least from Edinburgh there would be some chance!