Effect of Scottish Independence Vote

MumOf2

black_taxi wrote: »

I'm voting YES,but will respect NO vote,but the politics,journalism is getting personal,nasty nick(big brother territory)

Also propaganda war,today

daily express(England)---"millions of retirees face a pension shock"
daily express(Scotland)---"pensions safer within the UK"

telegraph blog--comparing Salmond to Mugabe

Please read the telegraph blog again - I think you'll find it was Munro who was compared to Mugabe in on-line targetting by pro-independence supporters. Back to school...

TCA

incandescent wrote: »

That means we need to borrow - and at higher rates than rUK - just to maintain our current spending. But they've promised all sorts of additional spending and investment, and splitting would in itself require lots of money to be spent creating new institutions etc.

This idea that we will immediately be better off is quite simply a blatant lie. Maybe in a decade or two. Maybe. But before that we would face austerity. There is simply no getting away from that.

I'd agree with most of that. Something like 27 of the 31 members of the OECD (for which data is available) are in deficit, so Scotland isn't alone in that.

I don't think anyone is saying we'd be better off on day one. Maybe that's how it comes across from the politicians but I don't think anyone with an ounce of realism is expecting things to improve overnight.

You said maybe in a decade or two. I think a lot of people would take that in preference to what we're getting now. Increased spending, initially yes, but there will be savings to be had in areas like defence, just to name one.

40% of Scotland's public spending is reserved and done from Westminster, including defence. I'd like to think an independent Scotland would make better use of its resources when in full control. Money would at least be spent entirely with the aim of benefiting Scotland. e.g. Estimated direct MOD expenditure in Scotland in 2007-08 was £1.57 billion (the latest figure I can find) and is substantially less than the £3.3 billion that Scotland currently contributes. How does that work? A nice premium which allows us to join in the fun in Iraq, Afghanistan and wherever else?

In short, an independent Scotland would do things differently and yes, it would take time. Not paying for Trident and avoiding the crippling cost of participating in wars we'd rather not be in, are just a start. A good start for me.

Don't ask me to list all the other savings that could be made elsewhere. Much will depend on the policies of the government of an independent Scotland and the result of negotiations with rUK. Neither of which I can influence or forecast. As I said before, I doubt you'll get the certainty of answers you're looking for before the vote.

black_taxi_2

whats your thoughts on express

TCA

black_taxi wrote: »

whats your thoughts on express

National Express, Pony Express, Heathrow Express, Gatwick Express, Stansted Express, Orient Express, Auto Express, New Musical Express, Optical Express, Vision Express or American Express?

Whichever, my answer is fast. Unless you're talking about the Daily Express, in which case, my answer is crap.

rpc

TCA wrote: »

As I said before, I doubt you'll get the certainty of answers you're looking for before the vote.

Which brings us back to one of the main arguments in favour of a No vote.

Remaining in the union, we broadly know what to expect. It may not be perfect, but we have financial stability, we can plan into the future and a great many other money-related things are roughly known (even down to the currency in my wallet).

By seceding, we don't know what lies ahead. We do know interest rates will almost certainly go up, it is highly likely that we will not use the pound (a great many Yes supporters see a currency union as a temporary measure, even if they can agree one). The deficit will probably increase initially, if for no other reason than the setup costs of a new EU-compliant state. We may be forced into Schengen. We will probably lose a number of private sector jobs initially, to be replaced much more slowly.

This being the savings and investment boards, most posters probably know that your average Joe and Jane Bloggs have a cautious risk profile. Tolerance for loss is very low and most people would rather forgo the chance of a high return in order to protect against the chance of a significant loss.

Do all Yes voters have their life savings tied up in AIM? That's probably a similar risk profile... I suspect most won't even venture away from cash because of "the risks."

What I cannot for the life of me work out is why that doesn't apply to the future of our country. There is potential to achieve great things, but there is also potential to be significantly worse off than we are just now. The only answer I can come up with is that (encouraged by the present government) Yes are blind to the downsides and see only positive outcomes.

We are told that we can't have the answers until after negotiations, but when some of the questions have a large possible downside we are told that it will all be fine. It can't be both - either we can have the answers now or a Yes vote leaves us exposed to risk.

No may be a bit too negative (and the media certainly help spin it that way) but Yes are outright dishonest with their denial of the risks.

black_taxi_2

Aim same risk as YES voter?

surely your jesting

giffnockhibee

incandescent wrote: »

I agree with all of the above, the question for me is exactly what to do with my savings before stage 3 happens.

And that's assuming there aren't any measures introduced to stop an outflow of cash.

There would be an 18 months window before any such measures could be introduced.

TCA

rpc wrote: »

Which brings us back to one of the main arguments in favour of a No vote.

Remaining in the union, we broadly know what to expect. It may not be perfect, but we have financial stability, we can plan into the future and a great many other money-related things are roughly known.

Good post and I see exactly where you're coming from. For me there are bigger and wider issues and I understand completely that different people place different values on different things.

You say the union may not be perfect but it appears acceptable because we broadly know what to expect. I'm not sure we can know what to expect, but I'm not happy with it as it is anyway.

At the risk of repeating myself, issues like Trident and foreign policy loom large in my thinking. I see a nuclear deterrent and following the US into every war that suits them, as both pointless and a massive waste of money, not to mention lives. Money that could be better spent on schools and hospitals etc...The Scottish Parliament (all parties) and the Scottish public (I believe) are in agreement. Yet we have no choice.

If Scotland had a government it voted for and these things were voted for by majority, then I'd accept it. I'm not in favour of FPTP-elected UK governments who pander to London and the South-East and will continue to so, treating Scotland as a region in the process. I wouldn't expect Westminster to legislate in the best interests of Scotland over any other part of the UK. Why should it? That's not it's job. The point being that an independent Scottish government would. For better or worse.

The UK is oft-cited as being the most unequal country in Europe. I can believe it. I've never seen such a reliance on food banks and charity. It's sickening. I don't believe it'll get any better as part of the UK, as I've watched it get progressively worse. I see some hope in being able to address the issue through independence. It's about self-determination and creating your own future.

How many people agree with the bedroom tax? And a Scottish government having to use a discretionary payment scheme (which is capped by Westminster) to alleviate the hardship imposed on thousands? It's just nonsense.

I could go on and the obvious reply would come that everyone will be worse off when it all goes pear-shaped under independence. I'm not blind to the risks but for me they are acceptable. Not so for others, fair enough. This being a Savings & Investment Board, most concerns I read on here are not at the top of my own priorities. Will I still get an ISA?, what will happen to my old ISAs?, what will happen to my UK pension, will I still have a UK passport, will I need a visa to visit my granny in Milton Keynes etc....

All important of course, but all issues that will be pragmatically resolved in the best interests of all concerned. And without going over old ground, I believe 100% that Scotland will be welcomed into the EU and I also am not quaking at the prospect of using sterling outside a currency union or indeed a new Scottish currency. Plain sailing it would not be, granted.

rpc wrote: »

There is potential to achieve great things, but there is also potential to be significantly worse off than we are just now. The only answer I can come up with is that (encouraged by the present government) Yes are blind to the downsides and see only positive outcomes.

That about sums it up. You either the see the potential for great things or see disaster looming around the corner. I don't think the Yes campaign are blind to the downsides. I'm yet to hear a politician talk up their position then highlight the negatives.

I'd be interested in a poll of populations of small independent countries to see how many of them would prefer to revert to how it once was.

I'll give last word to David Cameron. He said there were "four compelling reasons to save the Union: the economic benefits of being a bigger country, greater international clout, connections between people and the cultural impact of the UK."

At least 3 of those are baloney. He goes on:

"I'm not saying that Scotland couldn't make it on her own, of course Scotland could, just as England could - but ideally hope that this doesn't happen. I believe in the United Kingdom, head, heart and soul. We've achieved so much together, we can go on achieving great things together, so I hope that, when the time comes, Scots will vote to stay in our shared home."

And other than the first sentence, that's all baloney.

incandescent

TCA wrote: »

I could go on and the obvious reply would come that everyone will be worse off when it all goes pear-shaped under independence. I'm not blind to the risks but for me they are acceptable. Not so for others, fair enough. This being a Savings & Investment Board, most concerns I read on here are not at the top of my own priorities. Will I still get an ISA?, what will happen to my old ISAs?, what will happen to my UK pension, will I still have a UK passport, will I need a visa to visit my granny in Milton Keynes etc....

I don't want to respond to every point you made in that post but the part I've quoted probably cuts to the heart of the matter.

We're just coming out of one of the longest recessions in history. It's been a long hard slog. This year my income actually rose quicker than inflation for the first time in several years.

I am simply not prepared to sacrifice another 10 or 20 years of economic improvement or risk what I've worked hard for, for potential benefits somewhere down the line. I'm not prepared to do that to myself, nor am I prepared to wait until my children are in their 30s or 40s before they have the same chances I did at their age.

And do I believe the muppets (of all parties) in Holyrood are actually capable of managing a country's finances? No, absolutely not.

I've only spoken about financial matters here because it is a financial website but I also disagree profoundly with most of the social, cultural and political bases for independence.

It just feels that I've worked very hard, under difficult circumstances, to manage my own life and my own circumstances and look after my family as best as I can, but other people now want to take massive risks with my life. Risks they generally won't even acknowledge are real, never mind discuss how they might be mitigated. I can't begin to articulate how angry and frustrated that makes me.

TCA

incandescent wrote: »

I am simply not prepared to sacrifice another 10 or 20 years of economic improvement or risk what I've worked hard for, for potential benefits somewhere down the line. I'm not prepared to do that to myself, nor am I prepared to wait until my children are in their 30s or 40s before they have the same chances I did at their age.

And do I believe the muppets (of all parties) in Holyrood are actually capable of managing a country's finances? No, absolutely not.

I've only spoken about financial matters here because it is a financial website but I also disagree profoundly with most of the social, cultural and political bases for independence.

So why are you even on here asking questions about your savings? If the muppets at Holyrood can't answer your questions, do you really think you'll get answers on an internet message board?

Have you ever considered that your last 10 or 20 years have been so difficult in part due to the policies of the UK government? Do you recall the Thatcher years in Scotland? The stuff of nightmares. But of course successive UK governments have done such a great job since - I don't think so. Do you really think your children will have a bright and prosperous future if nothing changes? I admire your optimism. The outlook for the youth of Scotland is as bleak as ever it's been.

You're welcome to more of the same.