The finances of an Independent Scotland.

antrobus

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Whereas I would tend to view the repeated assertions previously by the leave campaign and latterly by Mayhem's government that no hard border will exist between NI/ROI, and trade will continue to be as unrestricted as it is today, as proof such an arrangement can be worked out on these British isles regardless of the EU membership status of it's various component parts...

So failure to also do so for an iScotland would be seen as nothing but petty spite... Which would properly get the backs up of the Scottish people and cause them to vote to leave in even bigger numbers.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Whereas I would tend to view the repeated assertions previously by the leave campaign and latterly by Mayhem's government that no hard border will exist between NI/ROI, and trade will continue to be as unrestricted as it is today, as proof such an arrangement can be worked out on these British isles regardless of the EU membership status of it's various component parts...

That argument does not make sense.

If trade was to "continue to be as unrestricted as it is today" between Ireland and the UK, why would it not continue to be as unrestricted as it is today between the UK (of which Scotland is a part) and the rest of the EU. The point about the EU (and indeed the EEA) is that all members are obliged to follow the same trade policy. They are not permitted to do their own deals with other states. The Brexit process will either result in a UK-EU trade deal or a reversion to WTO rules; that's what will determine the nature of the trading relationship between the UK and other EU members including Ireland.

Any hypothetical iScotland that later signed up to the EU would face the same issue, it would be subject to whatever arrangements were decided in Brussels. Whatever trade deal any iScotland agreed with the UK on achieving independence would have to be junked when it signed up to the EU (or indeed if it went EFTA-EEA), that's part of the price this hypothetical iScotland would have to pay.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

...So failure to also do so for an iScotland would be seen as nothing but petty spite... Which would properly get the backs up of the Scottish people and cause them to vote to leave in even bigger numbers.

Wouldn't it similarly be 'petty spite' if the EU failed to do so for the UK?

Not that it really matters; if leaving a single market that takes £12.3 billion of your exports is going to result in some economic pain, then leaving a single market that takes £49.8 billion of your exports is going to result in even more economic pain. That is just a matter of arithmetic and economics, and has nothing to do with petty spite and politics. Politics simply determines which single market you want to be a member of; you make your choice and you win or lose according to the economics.

And isn't it the economics that we are interested in here?

antrobus

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Except of course that the net benefit of EU membership to the UK is indeed almost £80bn per year...

We will find out soon enough if that is true. UK nominal GDP must be about £1900 bn, losing a benefit of £80 bn a year would be a loss of about 4%. That would imply that in 2020, the UK will suffer a recession as bad as that of 2009 (minus 4.2% apparently).

Perhaps it might be an idea to hold that second 'referendum' sometime in 2021 when the results are in.:)

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

...And you were mad enough to vote leave in that scenario.

I voted remain.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

antrobus wrote: »

isn't it the economics that we are interested in here?

I've already noted at some length in the OP that an iScotland would be quite significantly economically worse off - and also that Indy would make me personally less wealthy - but unless Mayhem changes course fairly quickly I'll be voting for it anyway.

TrickyTree83

antrobus wrote: »

I think Hintza does have a point. "Buckingham Palace is to undergo a 10-year refurbishment costing the taxpayer £369m". Scotland's 9% (or whatever) contribution to that figure is only about £3 million a year. One, that 'saving' isn't going to go very far in terms of replacing that £8.5bn this hypothetical independent Scotland won't be getting. Two, last time I looked SNP official policy was to retain Brenda as head of this new state. So you would still be coughing up your share.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38025513



Unless the Supreme Court issues an injunction. Amongst other possibilities.:)

sss555s doesn't appear to grasp Barnett consequentials.

I've tried to explain this before. For Scotland the current paradigm is like an investment plan, their taxes may well find their way to projects not in Scotland and in return they get paid more than their taxes generate in the first place.

http://stophs2.org/news/14673-barnett-inconsistency-adds-7-4bn-hs2-bill

However, the statement on funding policy now states that Northern Ireland will now get the full consequential, 3.39% of the £55.7bn cost (£1.89bn), and more oddly Scotland will get 9.85% too (£5.49bn), but Wales will get nothing. The decision to give Scotland the full payout, whilst denying Wales the 5.69% (£3.2bn) it should surely be in line for in terms of fairness, seems incomprehensible.

So sss555s, I'm surprised there aren't English people shouting at you that they want their taxes back, because they'd have a point where you clearly don't.

TrickyTree83

antrobus wrote: »

That argument does not make sense.

If trade was to "continue to be as unrestricted as it is today" between Ireland and the UK, why would it not continue to be as unrestricted as it is today between the UK (of which Scotland is a part) and the rest of the EU. The point about the EU (and indeed the EEA) is that all members are obliged to follow the same trade policy. They are not permitted to do their own deals with other states. The Brexit process will either result in a UK-EU trade deal or a reversion to WTO rules; that's what will determine the nature of the trading relationship between the UK and other EU members including Ireland.

Any hypothetical iScotland that later signed up to the EU would face the same issue, it would be subject to whatever arrangements were decided in Brussels. Whatever trade deal any iScotland agreed with the UK on achieving independence would have to be junked when it signed up to the EU (or indeed if it went EFTA-EEA), that's part of the price this hypothetical iScotland would have to pay.




Wouldn't it similarly be 'petty spite' if the EU failed to do so for the UK?

Not that it really matters; if leaving a single market that takes £12.3 billion of your exports is going to result in some economic pain, then leaving a single market that takes £49.8 billion of your exports is going to result in even more economic pain. That is just a matter of arithmetic and economics, and has nothing to do with petty spite and politics. Politics simply determines which single market you want to be a member of; you make your choice and you win or lose according to the economics.

And isn't it the economics that we are interested in here?

The part in bold is all you really needed to say, I've been saying it for ages. I don't know where this reputation as some kind of forum sage has come from but he does tend to gloss over some rather large inconsistencies in his arguments.

... I'm still waiting for the recession 8 times worse than the global financial crash upon merely voting to leave.

sss555s

antrobus wrote: »

I think Hintza does have a point. "Buckingham Palace is to undergo a 10-year refurbishment costing the taxpayer £369m". Scotland's 9% (or whatever) contribution to that figure is only about £3 million a year.

You are saying Hintza is right while proving I'm right.

Hintza wrote: »

You need to look at the income from the Crown Estate etc and tou will discover that the Queen pays 100% to the State and and is given 15% back to cover her costs etc. So in short the Queen pays a net tax of 85%.

So any money used for the refurbishment of Buckingham Palace will be a capital expenditure allowance.

The Queen has been awarded a 66% pay rise to fund a £369m 10-year refit of Buckingham Palace, after the prime minister and chancellor agreed that an increase in the sovereign grant was the best way to fund urgent repairs.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/nov/18/buckingham-palace-to-undergo-370m-refurbishment

Who owns The Crown Estate?

The Crown Estate belongs to the reigning monarch 'in right of The Crown', that is, it is owned by the monarch for the duration of their reign, by virtue of their accession to the throne. But it is not the private property of the monarch - it cannot be sold by the monarch, nor do revenues from it belong to the monarch.

https://www.thecrownestate.co.uk/our-business/faqs/


She's been handed £369m of UK tax payers money over the next 10 years plain and simple. I'm glad to have cleared that up for you.

westernpromise

As Scotland is not a net taxpayer there can be no sense in which Scotland pays for anything, anywhere.

Everything in Scotland is funded by English money.

A_Medium_Size_Jock

sss555s wrote: »

She's been handed £369m of UK tax payers money over the next 10 years plain and simple. I'm glad to have cleared that up for you.

No.
That besides the fact that this is of money which the monarchy have donated to the people.
Here's a bit more of just what The Crown Estate is, for anyone interested:

The revenues from these hereditary possessions have been placed by the monarch at the disposition of Her Majesty's Government and thus proceed directly to Her Majesty's Treasury for the benefit of the British nation.[

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_Estate

In reality then, far from burdening the taxpayer as some are suggesting the income from The Crown Estate is in fact being used to maintain part of that estate - Buckingham Palace.
Albeit in a more convoluted fashion since as said above, these estates have been placed at the disposition of the British nation.
To clarify from the original Graudian link:

The sovereign grant is the funding formula under which the Queen normally receives 15% of the annual profit from the crown estate. The trustees recommend she receive 25% for the 10 years the work is taking place and the grant should be returned to 15% when building work is finished in 2027.

sss555s

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

No.
That besides the fact that this is of money which the monarchy have donated to the people.

Why not get your facts from their own website instead of wiki?

Like I said above, the revenues don't belong to the Queen. The tax man and her decided to pay for the refurb by giving her a 66% pay rise on her 15% revenue salary for 10 years.

End result is either the tax payer has to make up the £369m shortfall or it will be made up from cuts.

A_Medium_Size_Jock

sss555s wrote: »

Why not get your facts from their own website instead of wiki?

Like I said above, the revenues don't belong to the Queen. The tax man and her decided to pay for the refurb by giving her a 66% pay rise on her 15% revenue salary for 10 years.

End result is either the tax payer has to make up the £369m shortfall or it will be made up from cuts.

Any particular reason for the nastiness; I didn't realise I had to supply links to suit you.
Especially when a link to that site had already been provided.

How would you feel I wonder about letting Edinburgh Castle fall to ruin?