Scottish independence

CLAPTON

jimjames wrote: »

I guess this is possible.

What the Scottish people should ask is if there are guaranteed to be no cuts, how much will tax rates rise to cover any deficit? There are 2 sides to tax and spend. If you don't cut spending then you have to raise taxes.

So how much will taxes rise under independence?

don't be silly


scotlnd has access to two money trees
-oil
-not paying for trident


these will fund huge increase in pensions, spending on the health service, on social housing without any extra borrowing or tax increases.

kangoora

CLAPTON wrote: »

don't be silly

scotlnd has access to two money trees
-oil
-not paying for trident

these will fund huge increase in pensions, spending on the health service, on social housing without any extra borrowing or tax increases.

Average oil & gas tax revenues for last 5 years have been £9.4Bn. Population of Scotland = 5.3m

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201213/ldselect/ldeconaf/152/15206.htm

9.4b/5.3m = £1775/year (this excludes whatever proportion of the current oil & gas tax revenue Scotland already gets. If allocated by percentage of population then around 8.5% reduction, say, £1625 per person.

Can't see huge increases across the whole spectrum of social benefits based upon £1625 extra revenue per person, especially if massive amounts (at least 50-75% of it maybe?) of this are going to be diverted into creating a Sovereign Wealth Fund for 'future generations'.

Scotland will be better off with these revenues, no doubt about it - whether it will be a nationwide panacea to spend on the perfect NHS, huge extra pensions, massive sums on social housing - I'm not so sure.

As an example, per capita spending on NHS services in the UK is an average of around £1.95k per person already with Scotland supposedly receiving £2.1k per person as of 2011.
http://www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/data-and-charts/health-care-spending-person-uk

CLAPTON

kangoora wrote: »

Average oil & gas tax revenues for last 5 years have been £9.4Bn. Population of Scotland = 5.3m

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201213/ldselect/ldeconaf/152/15206.htm

9.4b/5.3m = £1775/year (this excludes whatever proportion of the current oil & gas tax revenue Scotland already gets. If allocated by percentage of population then around 8.5% reduction, say, £1625 per person.

Can't see huge increases across the whole spectrum of social benefits based upon £1625 extra revenue per person, especially if massive amounts (at least 50-75% of it maybe?) of this are going to be diverted into creating a Sovereign Wealth Fund for 'future generations'.

Scotland will be better off with these revenues, no doubt about it - whether it will be a nationwide panacea to spend on the perfect NHS, huge extra pensions, massive sums on social housing - I'm not so sure.

As an example, per capita spending on NHS services in the UK is an average of around £1.95k per person already with Scotland supposedly receiving £2.1k per person as of 2011.
http://www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/data-and-charts/health-care-spending-person-uk

the usual estimate of how much Scotland gets in block grant in excess of the UK average is about 1,160 per capita which would no longer be payable


I've no real idea of how things will pan out as one has no real idea on the costs of separation, the impact on business and industry, the future price of oil or the policies of an semi independent Scotland.

jimjames

CLAPTON wrote: »

I've no real idea of how things will pan out as one has no real idea on the costs of separation, the impact on business and industry, the future price of oil or the policies of an semi independent Scotland.

That's the problem, I don't think anyone knows.

When you think about all the institutions that need to be duplicated that is a huge cost whether it's DVLA, Passports, Tax offices, FCA & other regulators. Rather than splitting it over 65 million people it's being split over 5 million people so the economies of scale just aren't available.

If Scotland ends up having new border posts etc then the economic hit could be huge. It really is a huge jump into the unknown and staying within the UK with almost total devolution just seems a far more sensible option.

Pincher

When somebody says there is only one Siberian tiger left, what is the correct reaction:

A. Try to preserve its DNA, and maybe clone it, etc.

B. I'll bid £10 million, so I can cook and eat it before it's all gone.


When you are J R Ewing, and you see oil reserves dwindling, do you:

A. Cut back production, and try to eke out the remaining supply frugally, for the sake of future generation.

OR

B. Find a George Bush junior style Best president money can buy, who will let you have a free hand to suck every well dry.

You want to sell the oil and make the money on your watch. Don't touch it so someone else can make money on it, are you nuts?

Anyway, in 30 years time, the Alaska style honeymoon paid for by the oil companies comes to an abrupt stop, and Scotland will have to make a real living. The Edinburgh festival pays the bills for one month in a year. They will soon find that the camper vans had filled up in Costco in Gateshead, and the hiking crowd spend even less by pitching a tent.

All the banking/asset management jobs have gone to in Deansgate in Manchester, and Docklands in London. The only advantage they hold is Sterling, so they can start playing at being an offshore deposit taker, with some tax dodge no doubt somebody will dream up.


As the economy goes further into decline, they will simply go Native American style, and market themselves as Native Celtic Nations. The McCleods will open a Highlander theme park, with sword play displays and declamations of "There can be only ONE." hourly. Inevitably, some clans will open casinos, so they now become the Macau of the Atlantic. If they hurry up, Donald Trump will still be alive to invest.

rpc

Pincher wrote: »

The Edinburgh festival pays the bills for one month in a year.

Hands off oor festival!! It's Edinburgh's festival and we won't see our income squandered by Scotland!

System

Hardly huge costs as Scotland already has passport, tax , military and regulator offices within it.

Scotland and rUK could either split UK assets / liabilities like Czech Republic / Slovakia or rUK could keep all UK assets but would have to take on all liabilities like Russia did with the former USSR.

England seems to have all the border issues and that is with border posts and the Channel between them and France.

jimjames wrote: »

That's the problem, I don't think anyone knows.

When you think about all the institutions that need to be duplicated that is a huge cost whether it's DVLA, Passports, Tax offices, FCA & other regulators. Rather than splitting it over 65 million people it's being split over 5 million people so the economies of scale just aren't available.

If Scotland ends up having new border posts etc then the economic hit could be huge. It really is a huge jump into the unknown and staying within the UK with almost total devolution just seems a far more sensible option.

colsten

Heng_Leng wrote: »

Hardly huge costs as Scotland already has passport

I am sorry, but you do need a reality check. Nothing of the existing infrastructure you mention is particular to Scotland and huge amounts of money and resources need to be spent to separate it from rUK and make it Scottish.

For example: a passport isn't just a document that has Scotland printed on it, it is also the manifestation that you belong to a nation that is represented throughout the world through diplomatic missions.

Costs will incur from getting the nation recognised by all the other countries and from splitting the UK passport system, and passport policing system. There is also the "minor" cost of setting up and running Scottish consulates etc in around 300 countries around the world (unless, of course, Scotland doesn't intend to continue to have a presence in all the countries the UK have a presence in).

Just a tiny example of the costs involved in doing things that would be required, just to essentially stand still for a number of years.

I have said it before and I say it again - I think scottish independence would be lunacy but I really would love to see a Yes vote now, simply to see the horrendous costs and lack of benefits of Salmond's ego trip.

System

I am sorry, but it is you that needs a reality check...

When a 'marriage' has run it's course; moving on is better for all concerned.

colsten wrote: »

I am sorry, but you do need a reality check.

jimjames

Heng_Leng wrote: »

Hardly huge costs as Scotland already has passport, tax , military and regulator offices within it.

Scotland and rUK could either split UK assets / liabilities like Czech Republic / Slovakia or rUK could keep all UK assets but would have to take on all liabilities like Russia did with the former USSR.

England seems to have all the border issues and that is with border posts and the Channel between them and France.

I hope the Scots making the decision are better informed.

If you really think an office is all it takes to run something then you'll get a bit of a surprise if there is a yes vote.

Even if systems get split there is still all the associated infrastructure and staff that need to run them. If all run from single centre in UK none of that will be available post independence. Having been through mergers there is a lot more to it from a systems perspective than you seem to think. And then you get into the legal side. The mountain of legal documents for the railways will seem like a walk in the park in comparison.

One thing you can guarantee is that the lawyers will love a yes vote and be busy for years.