We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The New Fat Scotland 'Thanks for all the Fish' Thread.
Comments
-
TrickyTree83 wrote: »...
If there's a bad deal for the UK it makes the case for independence worse not better. Come on, if you're going to use the word think at least put it into practice.
...
This seems clear.
The ideal time to sell Scottish independence was 2014, when oil prices were higher and the EU issue not even on the horizon.
If the UK economy does struggle in the immediate aftermath of A50 completing then there will be cuts. I don't see how that helps a newly independent Scotland establish a good trading relationship with what will still be a major partner.
However, Shakey is right in one thing. If the SNP unveils a plan to significantly shrink state spend once they are in full control, then they can eat into any deficit. They could also up VAT if they so desired, or increase other taxation. Scotland would survive; it would just be a difficult few years.0 -
Shakethedisease wrote: »None of that matters. Because you cannot predict how negotiations will go between Scotland/rUK debt divisions/assets and you cannot predict any economic model Scottish governments will follow in the subsequent years after independence. This is especially relevant and there is a good chance the SNP will split after independence.
This is what they don't seem to understand. They keep droning on about figures under Westminster control. I also notice that 2 of the 3 largest revenue companies in the EU are in the British oil and gas industry. I'm pretty sure I seen that Scotland would be around 12th in the EU as it is today which put's it around Finland level.
Not a bad starting position after Westminster give us a good deal on exit0 -
However, Shakey is right in one thing. If the SNP unveils a plan to significantly shrink state spend once they are in full control, then they can eat into any deficit. They could also up VAT if they so desired, or increase other taxation. Scotland would survive; it would just be a difficult few years.
That's realistic and I'm expecting a few difficult years with Brexit if we stay.0 -
Shakethedisease wrote: »Those figures all depend on the current status quo of the UK. That's about to change and change quickly. You do not know what the UK is going to end up with at the end of the two year window. Scotland would be mad not to prepare and secure itself a way out if it all turns sour, there are no good deals and there are going to be massive job losses anyway.
Hope you don't mind, I've cut away the political argument from the quote.
The figures are from the same institutions, the 80,000 figure has been used as a stick to beat the brow of those against independence by the SNP - whoops.
The jobs at risk figures are not forgone conclusions, the 80,000 nor the 1,000,000. They are estimates based on not the status quo, as that would be continuing EU membership (odd of you to say status quo), they are figures on the numbers of people who risk losing their jobs in either scenario. The numbers could be higher, they could be lower but they are certainly indicative of the magnitude of the risk.
Which boils down to this:
In Scotland, the risk of independence causing job losses is greater than the risk caused by Brexit. The magnitude of those losses is also greater.
Why? Because it may be possible to find alternative revenue streams to support ~80,000 jobs, lessening the impact. Vastly less so with the ~1,000,000 figure.
You are indeed correct that I do not know what the UK is going to end up with, so if we talk about the polar opposites and we can let intuition fill in the grey in the middle.
The best case scenario is trade as we have it now - no problems, EU a-la-cart! has finally arrived. I don't think this will happen, but it is the best case scenario.
The worst case scenario is WTO trade terms. Where we're exposed to tariffs.
Scotland in the best case scenario is better placed for independence because as an EU member Scotland will enjoy trade as we know it right now with the rest of the UK. Nothing would happen to the 64% of trade and nothing will happen to ~1,000,000 jobs dependent on the UK market.
Scotland in the worst case scenario is better placed to remain in the UK. This is because only ~80,000 jobs are at risk from losing single market membership and only 11% of Scotland's trade is done with the EU single market. Therefore protecting the 64% of trade with the rest of the UK and also the ~1,000,000 jobs that depend on the UK market.
Based on the information we have, out of the two situations - which is best for Scotland?
So if the deal puts us somewhere in the middle of that spectrum, Scotland is still best placed to remain in the UK. It would have to be a good deal, close to if not the best possible deal for an independent Scotland to look like an attractive option for Scottish people. Anything other than that poses too much risk to too vast a market for Scotland.
If we take your rebuttal as the pro-independence position, what you're essentially telling us is that as a pro-independence advocate you have no idea if independence will be better or worse for Scotland - but you think it's the right thing to do based on absolutely nothing whatsoever.0 -
This seems clear.
The ideal time to sell Scottish independence was 2014, when oil prices were higher and the EU issue not even on the horizon.
If the UK economy does struggle in the immediate aftermath of A50 completing then there will be cuts. I don't see how that helps a newly independent Scotland establish a good trading relationship with what will still be a major partner.
However, Shakey is right in one thing. If the SNP unveils a plan to significantly shrink state spend once they are in full control, then they can eat into any deficit. They could also up VAT if they so desired, or increase other taxation. Scotland would survive; it would just be a difficult few years.
7%+ GDP deficit to make up.
Basically take themselves from Greece to the UK before entering the EU.
Nah, I think you're being incredibly kind. People will go without the NHS, state funded university, pensions, welfare, tax breaks, etc... it will be a hell hole that witnesses the flight of capital both financial and intellectual. With only 5m people, that's going to hurt quite a bit.0 -
This is what they don't seem to understand. They keep droning on about figures under Westminster control. I also notice that 2 of the 3 largest revenue companies in the EU are in the British oil and gas industry. I'm pretty sure I seen that Scotland would be around 12th in the EU as it is today which put's it around Finland level.
Not a bad starting position after Westminster give us a good deal on exit
I guess the same applies for yourself?If we take your rebuttal as the pro-independence position, what you're essentially telling us is that as a pro-independence advocate you have no idea if independence will be better or worse for Scotland - but you think it's the right thing to do based on absolutely nothing whatsoever.0 -
TrickyTree83 wrote: »7%+ GDP deficit to make up.
Basically take from the Greece to the UK.
Nah, I think you're being incredibly kind. People will go without the NHS, state funded university, pensions, welfare, tax breaks, etc... it will be a hell hole that witnesses the flight of capital both financial and intellectual.
I actually think you have to start the process now. They couldn't just switch it around like an on/off switch.
It's within their gift to charge for higher education and prescriptions, just like the UK. This sort of cut would happen anyway, given the size of the gap to be made up.0 -
I actually think you have to start the process now. They couldn't just switch it around like an on/off switch.
It's within their gift to charge for higher education and prescriptions, just like the UK. This sort of cut would happen anyway, given the size of the gap to be made up.
I completely and wholeheartedly agree.
If the SNP and the pro-indy campaigners were genuinely serious about it, they'd already be living within their means. None of this socialist paradise claptrap. It would be an austere outpost of humanity for a good while, of course they'd see the flight of intellectual capital, but not so much the financial because they'd still be in the UK. They should course-correct now whilst in the union before attempting independence because the economic argument is too easy to win for those wishing to remain in the UK. Far too easy, it's pretty much an own goal for the pro-independence support.0 -
0
-
Shakethedisease wrote: »No. Many don't see it as a good nor reliable indicator of what an independent Scotland will look like economically. ...
It's a national statistic. The fact that a bunch of delusional idiots refuse to recognise that simply explains why they are delusional idiots.Shakethedisease wrote: »..People like Hague extrapolate the figures out assuming an independent Scotland would be following the current UK model. Which is obviously not going to happen....
Of course an independent Scotland is going to follow the current UK model. It can subsequently adopt a different model. But God knows what you mean by 'model'.Shakethedisease wrote: »...The Growth Commission would start with the GERS figures then apply a potential and completely different Scottish model going forward. Resulting in completely different conclusions.
Yes that's it. You start with the GERS figures. As in, you start in 2015-16 with a fiscal deficit of £14.8 billion (9.5% GDP). Then you apply your "potential and completely different Scottish model going forward". That model will specify the necessary tax rises and expenditure cuts required to reduce that fiscal deficit down to a more sustainable 2%-3%.
That's it. There is no magic money tree growing somewhere in the Trossachs.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

Categories
- All Categories
- 352.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.4K Life & Family
- 258.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards