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

TrickyTree83

Shakethedisease wrote: »

One of the reasons for a currency union last time was to keep the UK's balance of payments, and debt to GDP ratios down for everyone. I guess you've shot yourselves in the foot if there's a second referendum. I doubt there will be a second currency union offer only to score headlines off of again.

https://iainmacwhirter.wordpress.com/2016/10/19/100-days-of-brexit-lessons-for-scottish-independence/ <--- he normally writes for the Herald.

Scotland doesn't meet the criteria. And even then can stall indefinitely like other EU countries who don't use the Euro, ERM II participation.

Mmm, and with the fall in the value of the pound and consequential rise in inflation will ease that national debt burden. An increase in exports and a decrease in imports will also ease the current account deficit the UK has.

http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/3015/economics/why-inflation-makes-it-easier-for-government-to-pay-debt/

Oh and we'll be sharing out that national debt or acquiring Scottish assets in exchange for servicing it in the event of independence. I wonder what price Westminster will demand for a clean slate start?

Then there's the lack of need to finance Barnett and prop up North Sea Oil jobs.

The UK would probably be fine given our fiscal status in comparison to Scotland. Especially given that the UK currently insulates Scotland from problems it would otherwise be exposed to.

https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/8218

Here's a extract from the IFS:

An independent Scotland might have been able to negotiate a good deal on the share of the UK’s debt it took on. Lower debt would mean lower debt interest payments and would therefore reduce the budget deficit. However, it is worth noting that even if an independent Scotland had inherited none of the UK’s central government debt, its budget deficit would likely still be substantial: around 7.6% of national income (rather than 9.4%) in 2016-17 and 4.4% of national income (rather than 6.2%) in 2020-21 holding all other elements of our projections fixed.

Independence could affect Scottish economic performance. A weaker performance – which perhaps may be expected in the short term – would tend to push up Scotland’s deficit. But if, as the Scottish Government have previously claimed, independence would allow policies to grow the Scottish economy more quickly, such faster growth would tend to push up revenues and reduce Scotland’s deficit.

Independence would also, in principle, give the Scottish Government more freedom to tax and spend more or less, which could have implications for the Scottish budget deficit. In practice, however, if an independent Scotland faced a budget deficit anything like that in our projections, spending cuts or tax rises would be needed to put the public finances on a firmer footing.

The balance projections table makes for grim reading, as does the above quote.

Even with 'interpretations' and some mild inaccuracy claims, the statistics really do speak volumes.

It's surely time to face facts about Scotland's economic position. Especially when you're also going to put 64% of your trade at risk, you can be damn sure Scotland isn't worth 64% of rUK trade, so who takes the biggest hit?

kabayiri

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Have the Scots consulted the EU yet to see if they are agreeable. Words count for nothing. :snow_laug

Everyone seems to think these Brexit negotiations will be conducted in some kind of public arena, allowing us all to judge how hard or soft the Brexit will be.

I think this is rubbish. The EU and UK negotiators will keep their cards close to the chest I suspect. Why reveal your strategy? (from both sides)

Even if there is a clear timetable, Queen Nicola won't be invited to sit at the table. Why would you invite the leader of a minority party?

Thrugelmir

kabayiri wrote: »

I think this is rubbish. The EU and UK negotiators will keep their cards close to the chest I suspect. Why reveal your strategy? (from both sides)

Agreed. The UK is negotiating with 27 other parties not one. Easy to see 2 years passing with no full exit agreement reached. Rather like the lack of options Cameron returned with. The EU isn't going to change just because the UK is leaving. Totally the reverse.

kabayiri

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Agreed. The UK is negotiating with 27 other parties not one. Easy to see 2 years passing with no full exit agreement reached. Rather like the lack of options Cameron returned with. The EU isn't going to change just because the UK is leaving. Totally the reverse.

Even if there are leaks from the negotiations just who do you believe?

The Hungarian premier might be coming out with hardball comments; the Dutch might sound a lot more conciliatory. The Germans will sound diplomatic in public as they steer the EU; and the French...well they will be like the French always are!

When it drags out the public might even get bored and the news agenda move on.

Of course, if Shakey is right, everything will be done via Twitter and email, and Nicola S will be cc'd on every piece of correspondence

kabayiri

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

Take Hamish [STRIKE]as an example then[/STRIKE].
...

There...

Fixed that for you

Thrugelmir

kabayiri wrote: »

Even if there are leaks from the negotiations just who do you believe?

The Hungarian premier might be coming out with hardball comments; the Dutch might sound a lot more conciliatory. The Germans will sound diplomatic in public as they steer the EU; and the French...well they will be like the French always are!

There are no negotiations yet. Who will be at the table. Italy has a referendum in December this year, effectively a vote of confidence in the Prime Minister. Next year there are French, German, Netherland and Czech national elections. The actors are changing all the time. With them their views.

sss555s

kabayiri wrote: »

Even if there is a clear timetable, Queen Nicola won't be invited to sit at the table. Why would you invite the leader of a minority party?

Even when May stood up there and said Scotland would be fully informed, which is a bare faced lie to try and gain the confidence of the gullible.

Scotland's share of the UK is around 10% population, 30% land and over 50% offshore and I think we can do better than the being lied to and controlled by Westminster.

CLAPTON

sss555s wrote: »

Even when May stood up there and said Scotland would be fully informed, which is a bare faced lie to try and gain the confidence of the gullible.

Scotland's share of the UK is around 10% population, 30% land and over 50% offshore and I think we can do better than the being lied to and controlled by Westminster.

remind me
what currency will iscotland use
has Nicola told you yet?

TrickyTree83

sss555s wrote: »

Even when May stood up there and said Scotland would be fully informed, which is a bare faced lie to try and gain the confidence of the gullible.

Scotland's share of the UK is around 10% population, 30% land and over 50% offshore and I think we can do better than the being lied to and controlled by Westminster.

Which lies?

Tell us all which lies she's told regarding involving Scotland.

Quotes, verifiable quotes please.

kabayiri

sss555s wrote: »

Even when May stood up there and said Scotland would be fully informed, which is a bare faced lie to try and gain the confidence of the gullible.
...

Even other cabinet ministers who worked with May when she was in charge of the Home Office found her a bit of a closed book.

It's just words. She might even inform all right, but with all the minor details. I think Sturgeon would have preferred to hassle Cameron. May is a steely character. She gave someone the death stare today during PMQs.