Independence?

Big_Graeme

scotsbob wrote: »

How insulting and condescending.

The discussion had been civilised, now you choose to substitute mud slinging and personalised insults and drag the discussion down to gutter level.

Based on the First Minister's record in Holyrood on what facts do you base your comments, or are they just unsubstantiated assertions?

LOL if you think that is personal you need to get out more

Salmond has been blaming all the ills in Scotland on Westminster while failing to use the powers he has to do something about it, he has chosen to waste money on giving rich people free prescriptions and has failed to address the huge cost of further education.

.string.

Big_Graeme wrote: »

LOL if you think that is personal you need to get out more

Salmond has been blaming all the ills in Scotland on Westminster while failing to use the powers he has to do something about it, he has chosen to waste money on giving rich people free prescriptions and has failed to address the huge cost of further education.

... and running up a deficit, meanwhile blaming "Westminster" for the things he has not done.

As for the deficit - see here.
http://www.economonitor.com/blog/2014/07/an-independent-scotland-risks-a-greek-tragedy/

Which is one way of bribing the Electorate; a sort of "Stealth Bribe".

jj_5

Big_Graeme wrote: »

If you want to equate the Scottish economy with Gib that's your call, mind after a few years of Salmond with his grubby hands on "the levers" then it may be close that you'd wish...

No currency union means you don't have a central bank, you don't have any control over many of the key monetary policies that would affect the huge financial industry in Scotland.

Sterling is likely to be used for a transitional period only (I am fully accepting that there may not be a currency union).

Using Sterling informally has been described as an even better option by the Adam Smith Institute (impartial and independent) than a currency union would be

http://newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-news/9555-indy-scotland-could-flourish-with-or-without-currency-agreement-says-respected-institution

And a "perfectly viable option" by the Fiscal Commission (4 of the best economists in the world so I am led to believe)

You are correct that we would have less say in monetary policy if we were using the pound informally, but if you look at the trade off, which is full political freedom to shape the country how we see fit, I believe it is a worthwhile trade, with setting up our own currency further down the line an option for us.

I think the personal attacks on Salmond are a bit much to be honest. He is allowed an opinion and he has, as far as I'm aware, done (reasonably) well in his post

jj_5

.string. wrote: »

... and running up a deficit, meanwhile blaming "Westminster" for the things he has not done.

As for the deficit - see here.
http://www.economonitor.com/blog/2014/07/an-independent-scotland-risks-a-greek-tragedy/

Which is one way of bribing the Electorate; a sort of "Stealth Bribe".

Some fairly ropey assertions in that article with all due respect.

The first of which was to discuss Scotland's finances with the oil being shared throughout the UK (which is obviously irrelevant because 90% of the oil would be Scotland's).

And as far as the deficit goes, the UK has been running up a deficit, and from all the reading I've done on the matter, a much larger one than the Scottish deficit.

The article states that in 2012/2013 our deficit was larger, I believe (however may be mistaken) that this was the year that there was record investment in the oil industry (which the oil companies can obviously write off against tax liabilities).

It also states immediately afterwards that for the last 25 years our deficit has been larger than the UK's (without providing sources to back this up) and to be quite frank, from all the reading I've done on the matter that assertion is nonsense.

Scotland's finances are healthier than the UK's and have been for some time.

jj_5

Big_Graeme wrote: »

If you want to equate the Scottish economy with Gib that's your call, mind after a few years of Salmond with his grubby hands on "the levers" then it may be close that you'd wish...

No currency union means you don't have a central bank, you don't have any control over many of the key monetary policies that would affect the huge financial industry in Scotland.

Sorry Graeme I didn't mention this in my other post. People worry about the financial services industry losing jobs etc (can't remember if it was yourself who mentioned it), but you must accept yourself that independence would create jobs aswell.

Pros and cons

jem16

jj_5 wrote: »

You are correct that we would have less say in monetary policy if we were using the pound informally, but if you look at the trade off, which is full political freedom to shape the country how we see fit, I believe it is a worthwhile trade, with setting up our own currency further down the line an option for us.

So who would be our "lender of last resort"?

If Scotland had been Independent during the banking crisis, would it have been able to bail out RBS and HBOS? If such a crisis were to happen again, could Scotland afford the bail out?

jj_5

jem16 wrote: »

So who would be our "lender of last resort"?

If Scotland had been Independent during the banking crisis, would it have been able to bail out RBS and HBOS? If such a crisis were to happen again, could Scotland afford the bail out?

It's a reasonable question and not one I will pretend to know the answer to. All I will say is if you look at all of the countries who have gained independence from Britain throughout the commonwealth, many of them will have used the pound informally for a long period afterwards. Ireland being a prime example.

Now the argument will be thrown at you that Ireland's economy was stagnant during this period. But I wonder if this had more to do with the turmoil they were going through/companies being unwilling to invest there than their informal use of the pound.

It might surprise you to hear that Panama's financial system is one of the most stable in the world, they've been using the dollar for a long time.

On bailouts, my first argument would be that an Indy Scotland would not have de-regulated the banks in the first place (which caused the crash).

My 2nd argument would be, that the UK actually had a multi billion dollar bailout from the US federal reserve aswell.

Countries bail each other out, because it's not in their interest for their trading partners to go bust. The same would be the case for an indy Scotland.

Page 14 of this is a decent read (it all is to be fair) http://wingsoverscotland.com/WeeBlueBookMobileEdition.pdf

Big_Graeme

jj_5 wrote: »

Sterling is likely to be used for a transitional period only (I am fully accepting that there may not be a currency union).

See that is a perfectly acceptable case, I don't agree that it should happen but it is a workable solution if it is to be our own currency, because the Yes campaign see at as a hard sell, and it would be with the danger of having the Euro forced on us as a condition of re-entry to Europe, they have failed to explain anything but there being a currency union.

jj_5 wrote: »

Using Sterling informally has been described as an even better option by the Adam Smith Institute (impartial and independent) than a currency union would be

See although it could happen and would work, I'm not sure it is the best option, the whole point of the Yes campaign is getting their hands on all the "financial levers" by using Sterling as an informal currency you give up many of those levers, in fact leaving us with less say than we have now, remember we have devolved tax raising powers now, there would be some ability to set corporation tax rates but you'd see some worry about currency stability in the medium to long term meaning head quarters move south faster than they are now.

jj_5 wrote: »

You are correct that we would have less say in monetary policy if we were using the pound informally, but if you look at the trade off, which is full political freedom to shape the country how we see fit, I believe it is a worthwhile trade, with setting up our own currency further down the line an option for us.

See I don't buy this full political freedom line, all governments are slaves to the market and big business, we are only opening ourselves up to short term gamblers and more market pressure meaning fewer choices being available to those who go on to form the next Scottish Government.

jj_5 wrote: »

I think the personal attacks on Salmond are a bit much to be honest. He is allowed an opinion and he has, as far as I'm aware, done (reasonably) well in his post

He has plenty of powers to negate some of the worst of the cuts from Westminster, he has failed everytime to help those who needed it most choosing to both blame Westminster and get priorities wrong. Don't confuse attacks on Salmonds actions and policies for ad hominem attacks, they are not.

jj_5 wrote: »

Sorry Graeme I didn't mention this in my other post. People worry about the financial services industry losing jobs etc (can't remember if it was yourself who mentioned it), but you must accept yourself that independence would create jobs aswell.

Pros and cons

Where would these jobs come from (the renewables industry can only create so many jobs) and what value are they? I have seen nothing from the Yes side here and remain to be convinced.

.string.

jj_5 wrote: »

Sorry Graeme I didn't mention this in my other post. People worry about the financial services industry losing jobs etc (can't remember if it was yourself who mentioned it), but you must accept yourself that independence would create jobs aswell.

Pros and cons

Did you mean

Pros and cons or

Pros and cons

?

It's a matter of balance: It's no help to Scotland if the Lost Jobs are all the finance people and the gained jobs are in the furniture removal business.

.string.

jj_5 wrote: »

Some fairly ropey assertions in that article with all due respect.

The first of which was to discuss Scotland's finances with the oil being shared throughout the UK (which is obviously irrelevant because 90% of the oil would be Scotland's).

And as far as the deficit goes, the UK has been running up a deficit, and from all the reading I've done on the matter, a much larger one than the Scottish deficit.

The article states that in 2012/2013 our deficit was larger, I believe (however may be mistaken) that this was the year that there was record investment in the oil industry (which the oil companies can obviously write off against tax liabilities).

It also states immediately afterwards that for the last 25 years our deficit has been larger than the UK's (without providing sources to back this up) and to be quite frank, from all the reading I've done on the matter that assertion is nonsense.

Scotland's finances are healthier than the UK's and have been for some time.

According to the Times this morning, on present spending patterns, Scotland had a capital and current spending deficit in 2012-2013 of 8.3% of GDP compared with the UK deficit of 7.3%. As for oil, receipts for that have fallen to an equivalent £4.2 billion for 2013 - 2014.

As for "ropey assertions" you need look no further than the SNP Manifesto (I mean White Paper).

For further info see my recent posts on the thread "SNP in Full Retreat .......", - no need to repeat myslef further.

With all due respect of course because I hope that Scotland is still around for the rest of us to help out.