New Currency for a new Country

IronWolf

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

I think you;ll find that the UK is running a deficit too.

Instead of being selective on a single year, why not open your mind to a longer period, where Scotland has run a proportionally smaller deficit than the UK.

An Independent Scotland would also choose not to spend on other extravagences the UK does, meaning the deficit would be even smaller i.e. the billions saved from Trident.

Scotland is a prosperous country and why the ROUK wants to keep the union.

But what about all the additional costs of replicating work currently done UK wide?

.string.

beecher2 wrote: »

Blair McDougall is head of Better Together! You are talking about Angus Robertson - there's no reaction from anyone on the panel or the audience as it is blindingly obvious that he stuttered over his words. This is desperate, and actually quite embarrassing stuff.

When you come back in October, the island you live in will still be there, regardless of the decision the people of Scotland make.

Thank you for correcting me, I have edited the name to give credit where it was due.

A slip of the tongue? - I doubt it; I had never heard of the word before I heard him say it. You don't slip in a word, even by mistake, unless it is one which you are familiar.

.string.

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Surely your showing that all is not "better together" in the current state, so I ask again, why can't Scotland becaome a successful independent nation like Denmark?

You would not want Dk's NHS.

posh*spice

Generali wrote: »

1. The markets aren't that upset. This isn't like Black Wednesday or anything.

Isn't that the truth!? This is a non-event to the markets?

Generali

posh*spice wrote: »

Isn't that the truth!? This is a non-event to the markets?

It is at the moment. After all, what's happened?

1. A vote was announced on Scottish independence
2. Yes is behind in the polls
3. (now) Yes is a bit less behind in the polls

Imagine you are deciding what shares to buy on behalf of clients in Tokyo or New York. What has changed substantially? I would argue, very little.

However, if Yes gains a lead in the polls or even wins the result, what would you do if you were a Portfolio Manager who doesn't really understand or care about the implications? You'd sell (if that wasn't your instinct you'd never make it past being an analyst).

If you had cash in a 'Scottish' Bank (not that 'Scottish Bank' means anything) then you'd get the cash out. If you are going to panic then panic early as the old saying has it.

A Yes vote would be interesting but at the same time mean chaos.

purch

Someone should tatoo:

Fail to prepare and you prepare to fail

...............on tubby Salmonds forehead

A sensibly thought out policy could have avoided any issues.............instead we get umm's and err's

IveSeenTheLight

IronWolf wrote: »

But what about all the additional costs of replicating work currently done UK wide?

It may have been on another thread, but there was a discussion about running a system on a cost per head basis.

Let's take the DVLA for example, Instead of paying road tax to the DVLA, it can be paid to an SDVLA if you like.

Why is there additional costs, indeed there may be an opportunity to streamline and reduce costs in some instances.

CLAPTON

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

It may have been on another thread, but there was a discussion about running a system on a cost per head basis.

Let's take the DVLA for example, Instead of paying road tax to the DVLA, it can be paid to an SDVLA if you like.

Why is there additional costs, indeed there may be an opportunity to streamline and reduce costs in some instances.

it's well known that large companies are inefficient and have no economies of scale whilst small companies make much higher profit margins


that is why uncle alex will limit the size of all scottish companies in the interests of lower unit costs : in fact I emailed him today as an idea for the constitution should YES win.

IveSeenTheLight

CLAPTON wrote: »

it's well known that large companies are inefficient and have no economies of scale whilst small companies make much higher profit margins


that is why uncle alex will limit the size of all scottish companies in the interests of lower unit costs : in fact I emailed him today as an idea for the constitution should YES win.

Yawn,

We've been over this before.
There can be economies of scale but it can become a point of a point of dis-economies of scale.

Your constant attempts to take things to extreme is quite laughable really.

Another respected poster used the terminology WUM and I think you fall into this perfectly

CLAPTON

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Yawn,

We've been over this before.
There can be economies of scale but it can become a point of a point of dis-economies of scale.

Your constant attempts to take things to extreme is quite laughable really.

Another respected poster used the terminology WUM and I think you fall into this perfectly

It is absurd to suggest very single change in Scotland's position will be for the better : even something as trivial a vehicle licensing.


Now I know that you worship the great leader and you believe there is not a single downside of independence but you merely make yourself ridiculous.


What's extreme about expecting economies of scale?
What's extreme about assuming that smaller will be a little more expensive per unit of output?


The problem with sycophantic nonsense is that sometime people actually start to believe it and make all the wrong decisions.