The New Fat Scotland 'Thanks for all the Fish' Thread.

kabayiri

wotsthat wrote: »

...

Brexit was a gift for the SNP because it gave them a (faux) reason to highlight the, oh so big, differences between the peoples of Scotland vs the UK. If it wasn't that they'd be stuck with moaning about the annual chat about changing to double summer time etc.
...

Don't forget the higher level of voting apathy in Scotland, a supposedly EU fanatical country.

A third simply couldn't be bothered enough to turn out and vote.

They won't be on Nicola's christmas card list.

kabayiri

CLAPTON wrote: »

with all this concern for the value of the pound, its a shame that after 30 years of thinking, Nicola refuses to tell the people of scotland what currency they would use after iscotland. Whilst its probably politically sensible to continue to mislead the scots it does seem unethical to me.

Didn't you know?

According to Sturgeon Scotland is at the "heart of Europe".

So, in the mid to long term, it will be the European currency of choice : the Euro.

That should please the SNP fanatics.

antrobus

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

Looking at GVA, Scotland has done well within the union. Likely dragged up by 40 years of Barnett funding......

The Barnett formula is actually quite equitable; expenditure is allocated between the various constituent nation of the UK in accordance with their relative populations. It is not responsible for the 'subsidy' that Scotland receives, and will (in due course, depending on inflation etc) remove it. See Barnett Squeeze.

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

...But because you want to paint it in a pro independence light, you're going to use GERS?...

GERS is the best available guess as to what the fiscal position would be for an independent Scotland. And it tells you that Scotland would be bankrupt within a short time frame without crunch austerity.

Independence has a price.

TrickyTree83

antrobus wrote: »

The Barnett formula is actually quite equitable; expenditure is allocated between the various constituent nation of the UK in accordance with their relative populations. It is not responsible for the 'subsidy' that Scotland receives, and will (in due course, depending on inflation etc) remove it. See Barnett Squeeze.



GERS is the best available guess as to what the fiscal position would be for an independent Scotland. And it tells you that Scotland would be bankrupt within a short time frame without crunch austerity.

Independence has a price.

Disagree that Barnett is equitable, by it's very nature the formula is not. This supposed 'squeeze' as you rightly point out is a theory based on inflation, however it doesn't take into account population growth. So Scotland is continually getting a larger block grant as the rest of the UK economy increases, with migration in England being vastly higher than that of Scotland this larger block grant is divided by a smaller ratio. This is why you see statistics relating to the 'per head' of population quoting disparity figures of £1,200 per head.

With regards to GERS, I agree, that's why I'm questioning why Shakey would at first disagree with me about GERS being acceptably accurate as a basis for an independent Scotland, and then go on to use GERS as a defence when the GVA statistics shows that Barnett works for Scotland but that Barnett comes at a cost, a UK financed deficit which equates to ~9% of Scottish GDP.

.string.

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

...
... if you've enjoyed 40 years of growth, enhanced funding, raised living standards, increased devolved powers you now want to leave the union that brought you this and join another union that will mean that Scotland is most likely a net contributor, only applies to a whopping 11% of Scottish trade and will still run your laws from a city even further away than London.

Apart from feeling it, can you tell me what benefits and drawbacks Scottish independence within the EU will have over devolved government under the UK outside the EU?

Yes it does seem weird.. Without the UK the EU with Scotland in it would have a population of around 449 million, Scotland has a population of 5.4 million, about 1.2% of the total, about 18th of the EU member states, around the same as Slovakia, below Finland. Scotland will have vetoes on some things but little influence on the majority of decisions which are by majority or qualified majority voting. S Scotland will have no special status in the EU, and wee Krankie Wil
have a seat on the back row after a couple of weeks of novelty. At the moment English is an official language, but that may change to just German and French.

Scotland would have to join the Euro having enjoyed an extended period of austerity in order to conform to EU financial requirements, and have to follow the strictures that go with the Euro Zone (approval of national budget according to EU criteria, joint guarantor of other nation's financial stability ), the Shengen agreement will apply, allowing uncontrolled immigration out of Scotland and into Scotland and necessitating border controls between Scotland and the UK.

Scotland will abide by the single market rules and shall not enter into any other trade agreements,

European Law will over-rule Scottish Law.


Independence? An illusion I'm afraid, submerged in the platitudes of European Cooperation and consigned to the land of "might have been".

Scotland will be signed up to "ever closer Union". It will be submerged in a bureaucratic monolith, with its Parliament subservient to the European Parliament where Scotland will be represented by 6 MAPs out of about 700. Maybe a minor post on Brussels.

Appropriately for this thread, that is a very small fish.

Good Bye Scotland!

So proud, capable, Scotland will have ditched its current favoured status as a valued member of a United Kingdom which while currently struggling with self inflicted wounds is determined to make Brexit a success, able to trade with whosoever it wants and beholden to nobody and remain a prime mover in this World.

A_Medium_Size_Jock

.string. wrote: »

Yes it does seem weird.. Without the UK the EU with Scotland in it would have a population of around 449 million, Scotland has a population of 5.4 million, about 1.2% of the total, about 18th of the EU member states, around the same as Slovakia, below Finland. Scotland will have vetoes on some things but little influence on the majority of decisions which are by majority or qualified majority voting. S Scotland will have no special status in the EU, and wee Krankie Wil
have a seat on the back row after a couple of weeks of novelty. At the moment English is an official language, but that may change to just German and French.

Scotland would have to join the Euro having enjoyed an extended period of austerity in order to conform to EU financial requirements, and have to follow the strictures that go with the Euro Zone (approval of national budget according to EU criteria, joint guarantor of other nation's financial stability ), the Shengen agreement will apply, allowing uncontrolled immigration out of Scotland and into Scotland and necessitating border controls between Scotland and the UK.

Scotland will abide by the single market rules and shall not enter into any other trade agreements,

European Law will over-rule Scottish Law.


Independence? An illusion I'm afraid, submerged in the platitudes of European Cooperation and consigned to the land of "might have been".

Scotland will be signed up to "ever closer Union". It will be submerged in a bureaucratic monolith, with its Parliament subservient to the European Parliament where Scotland will be represented by 6 MAPs out of about 700. Maybe a minor post on Brussels.

Appropriately for this thread, that is a very small fish.

Good Bye Scotland!

So proud, capable, Scotland will have ditched its current favoured status as a valued member of a United Kingdom which while currently struggling with self inflicted wounds is determined to make Brexit a success, able to trade with whosoever it wants and beholden to nobody and remain a prime mover in this World.

:T

Ah well, at least we know what currency we'll be using .............. untill it collapses.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/eurozone-euro-collapse-house-of-cards-ecb-single-currency-a7364826.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/02/28/mervyn-king-the-eurozone-is-doomed/

sss555s

This post looks like an UK Unionist view of Scottish independence by someone who has probably never lived in Scotland.

.string. wrote: »

Yes it does seem weird.. Without the UK the EU with Scotland in it would have a population of around 449 million, Scotland has a population of 5.4 million, about 1.2% of the total, about 18th of the EU member states, around the same as Slovakia, below Finland. Scotland will have vetoes on some things but little influence on the majority of decisions which are by majority or qualified majority voting. S Scotland will have no special status in the EU, and wee Krankie Wil
have a seat on the back row after a couple of weeks of novelty. At the moment English is an official language, but that may change to just German and French.

So will Scotland have more or less say than they have just now?

.string. wrote: »

Scotland would have to join the Euro having enjoyed an extended period of austerity in order to conform to EU financial requirements, and have to follow the strictures that go with the Euro Zone (approval of national budget according to EU criteria, joint guarantor of other nation's financial stability ), the Shengen agreement will apply, allowing uncontrolled immigration out of Scotland and into Scotland and necessitating border controls between Scotland and the UK.

We all know that isn't the first preference and there are other options. You seem to only highlight what you see to be the worst option.

.string. wrote: »

Scotland will abide by the single market rules and shall not enter into any other trade agreements,

No change there then... We will have a new agreement with the UK though.

.string. wrote: »

European Law will over-rule Scottish Law.

And Scottish law will over-rule Westminster law.

.string. wrote: »

Independence? An illusion I'm afraid, submerged in the platitudes of European Cooperation and consigned to the land of "might have been".

Scotland will be signed up to "ever closer Union". It will be submerged in a bureaucratic monolith, with its Parliament subservient to the European Parliament where Scotland will be represented by 6 MAPs out of about 700. Maybe a minor post on Brussels.

How many MAPs does Scotland have representing just now?

.string. wrote: »

Appropriately for this thread, that is a very small fish.

Good Bye Scotland!

Cheers mate :beer:

.string. wrote: »

So proud, capable, Scotland will have ditched its current favoured status as a valued member of a United Kingdom which while currently struggling with self inflicted wounds is determined to make Brexit a success, able to trade with whosoever it wants and beholden to nobody and remain a prime mover in this World.

The Brexit vote results tell you all you need to know about how Scots feel about the UK leaving the EU.

Shakethedisease

antrobus wrote: »

That £15bn deficit is now financed by the UK.

If Scotland was independent, Scotland would have to finance that £15 bn deficit all by itself. Since that amounts to over 9% of GDP it is not sustainable, particularly when you appreciate the EU's target of a 3% deficit.

An independent Scotland would need to implement cuts and tax increases to reduce its deficit. That's what GERS tells you.

Independence comes at a price. And it won't be cheap.

I know, but I asked you what happens to rUK's GDP and Balance of trade etc if Scotland goes. Even a vague guess at how the markets would react since, respectfully, but you seem very sure of what going to happen to a hypothetical iScotland with a hypothetical 15bn pound deficit to finance.

Rogers International Commodities index (RICI) – has remained decidedly downbeat in his Pound Sterling (GBP) forecasts in recent weeks and he revisited this theme on Friday, noting that,

‘If Scotland leaves (the UK) they are going to take their oil with them and the Pound could go down a great deal. It would certainly go down under one US dollar,’ before going on to state that the UK has, ‘got a lot of debt, you've got a serious balance of trade problem which shows no signs of being corrected. I don't see anything to make sterling go up.’

http://www.exchangerates.org.uk/news/16534/rogers-forecasts-heavy-losses-for-pound.html

Just wondered if there was more to keeping Scotland in the UK than meets the eye in the context of markets. What's your thoughts ?

TrickyTree83

Shakethedisease wrote: »

I know, but I asked you what happens to rUK's GDP and Balance of trade etc if Scotland goes. Even a vague guess at how the markets would react since, respectfully, but you seem very sure of what going to happen to a hypothetical iScotland with a hypothetical 15bn pound deficit to finance.

http://www.exchangerates.org.uk/news/16534/rogers-forecasts-heavy-losses-for-pound.html

Just wondered if there was more to keeping Scotland in the UK than meets the eye in the context of markets. What's your thoughts ?

It would be bad for both Scotland and the rUK for Scotland to secede. Really cannot see the rhyme or reason for it, specifically because this time it comes with the added caveat of having to remain in/join the EU.

The EU is now a massive spanner in the works meaning it makes more sense to devolve more powers and remain in fiscal and over-arching political union rather than split completely.

Shakethedisease

antrobus wrote: »

GERS is the best available guess as to what the fiscal position would be for an independent Scotland. And it tells you that Scotland would be bankrupt within a short time frame without crunch austerity.

Without going into the whole GERS debate again, and am in no way stating that Scotland might not have serious challenges. But GERS being the best we've got (I agree with that too ) doesn't make it absolutely accurate. Doesn't account for debt/asset negotiations and doesn't account for Scotland only policy choices and savings that would be made. For instance on defence and in other areas. These were comments from another forum I found really interesting and must read up a bit more on. However they highlight many problems with current UK wide v's Scotland only spending and revenues.

UK public sector debt around £300 Billion in 2000, up to over £1300 billion by 2014. Over 4 times as much. It is also possible to see where the loans that caused the debt were spent (by looking at the deficit or surplus for each area, for which numbers are available at least back to the 80s'), and it is entirely true that in the 80s and 90s they were mainly spent in England, but paid for by everyone.

It is also true that the National Infrastructure Plan massively benefits England. For example, in the NIP spending announced at the end of 2014 Scotland put in £12 Billion, and was allocated only £1 Billion worth of projects in return. This was the Peterhead Carbon Capture plant that was cancelled. In other words Scotland spent £12 Billion and got nothing from it.

( username ) is also correct in pointing out that many infrastructure projects in and around London (crossrail 1&2, M25, London Sewer upgrades, HS2, CHannel Tunnel etc) were all counted as UK expenditure under the NIP (no Barnett consequentials, and the whole of the UK pays), but any similar works in Scotland are entirely paid for from the Scottish budget. New Forth Bridge for example.

No part of the UK is a net contributor, and Scotland is servicing the debts as much as anyone else.

Would you agree ( again without going into a whole GERS back and forth thing here ) that things can get very muddy when things get broken down a bit ?

http://www.gov.scot/Publications/2015/03/1422/9

In some cases, revenue figures can be obtained for Scotland directly. Examples include local government revenues and particular elements of public corporation revenues. Such taxes are the exception and separate identification of most other revenues for Scotland is not possible. GERS therefore uses a number of different methodologies to apportion tax revenues to Scotland. In doing so, there are often theoretical and practical challenges in determining an appropriate share to allocate to Scotland. In certain cases, a variety of alternative methodologies could be applied each leading to different estimates.