The finances of an Independent Scotland.

TrickyTree83

wotsthat wrote: »

There's no conflict in calling BS on (a) iScotland triggering a nuclear winter and (b) iScotland leading to milk and honey once the SNP have control of all the levers.

Sorry if you thought I was aiming that at you, I wasn't.

I was aiming it at Scottish nationalists who think Brexit will be bad for Scotland but independence won't be. It will be worse than Brexit ([STRIKE]just[/STRIKE] possibly (sorry!) over 10 times worse) according to the SNP trusted economists.

wotsthat

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

Sorry if you thought I was aiming that at you, I wasn't.

I was aiming it at Scottish nationalists who think Brexit will be bad for Scotland but independence won't be. It will be worse than Brexit ([STRIKE]just[/STRIKE] possibly (sorry!) over 10 times worse) according to the SNP trusted economists.

Yes, aside from the lack of logic there's a highly unlikely sequence of events that need to take place before the reality of the situation can be assessed.

- polls for independence need to be 60% or 40% so..
- a referendum is called and ..
- the SNP need to convince Scots they'll be better off leaving the Union and
- the EU need to accept iScotland as a member

That's some accumulator bet for anyone feeling lucky.

antrobus

wotsthat wrote: »

Yes, aside from the lack of logic there's a highly unlikely sequence of events that need to take place before the reality of the situation can be assessed.

- polls for independence need to be 60% or 40% so..
- a referendum is called and ..
- the SNP need to convince Scots they'll be better off leaving the Union and
- the EU need to accept iScotland as a member

That's some accumulator bet for anyone feeling lucky.

You might also have to convince the Supreme Court to allow a 'referendum' to be held. Perhaps the Scottish Parliament will have to call it a 'popular consulation', or whatever excuse it is that Catalonia used. Which hasn't yet resulted in Catalonian independence, but has resulted in some Catalan politician appearing in court on charges of abuse of office and misuse of public funds.

Scotland is, of course, perfectly entitled to be independent, if that's what the majority want. But the chances of that happening before Brexit are less than zero. Crumbs, it's going to be hard enough work to negotiate a deal with the EU, neither the UK nor Scotland have enough civil servants to devote to the massive task of unpicking a three hundred year union.

Any discussion of the finances of an independent Scotland are thus hypothetical. It should be sufficient for pro-independence zealots to understand that there is a £8.5bn annual bonus, and that making that up is not going to be easy.

P.S. The OP knows this, and that's why they have asked for suggestions.

A_Medium_Size_Jock

wotsthat wrote: »

Yes, aside from the lack of logic there's a highly unlikely sequence of events that need to take place before the reality of the situation can be assessed.

- polls for independence need to be 60% or 40% so..
- a referendum is called and ..
- the SNP need to convince Scots they'll be better off leaving the Union and
- the EU need to accept iScotland as a member

That's some accumulator bet for anyone feeling lucky.

I don't often agree with your POV but here it must be said that you are spot-on.
So much so in fact that I would LOVE this to be a sticky in the "... Fat Scotland ... " thread linked to in here earlier.

Pro-SNP pro-independence acolytes must surely know all this.
it is stuff that cannot reasonably be denied.
Ergo either:
* They are so brainwashed that they refuse to accept fact.
OR
* They are lying.

Herzlos

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

ts predictions on number of jobs at risk, how you can classify one set as absurd and one set as realistic on the basis of "basic scrutiny" without actually defining that for anyone is ridiculous. What you're actually doing there is "I believe economist A, and disbelieve economist B, because economist A confirms my bias", whereas I'd say they all talk crap but if you want to cite statistics from economist A you cannot discount economist B without credible proof.

Not at all; the figures don't both pass the same scrutiny test.

The figures your quoting claim Brexit will cost about 3% of the workforce - that's negligable and pretty believable. A downturn in the economy could easily cost that, as would trade barriers.

But you seem to think that if I accept that Brexit could cost 3% of the workforce, I must also believe that iScotland would cost about 40% of the workforce, which is just farcical. I don't care if it comes from the same source, they don't get a free ride for being accurate enough elsewhere.
I'd accept numbers up to about 10% as plausible for both Brexit/iScotland, because they are just that, plausible.

You seem to want me to accept that any job that touches the rUK will cease when Brexit happens, but I genuinely can't see any event that'd cause such widespread economic losses. Even if half of our retailers pulled out of Scotland, the gap in the market they'd create would be huge.

Herzlos

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

I was aiming it at Scottish nationalists who think Brexit will be bad for Scotland but independence won't be. It will be worse than Brexit ([STRIKE]just[/STRIKE] possibly (sorry!) over 10 times worse) according to the SNP trusted economists.

I think both will be bad, but I think Brexit will be far worse for us than iScotland. I was actually a unionist but I have to take what I feel to be the lesser of the 2 evils when my families future is concerned.

mrginge

Herzlos wrote: »

But you seem to think that if I accept that Brexit could cost 3% of the workforce, I must also believe that iScotland would cost about 40% of the workforce, which is just farcical. I don't care if it comes from the same source, they don't get a free ride for being accurate enough elsewhere.
I'd accept numbers up to about 10% as plausible for both Brexit/iScotland, because they are just that, plausible.

wotsthat wrote: »

Quite. You've proven people tend to believe economists who are saying what they want to hear. I think we know that already.

Case proven m'lord.

TrickyTree83

Herzlos wrote: »

Not at all; the figures don't both pass the same scrutiny test.

The figures your quoting claim Brexit will cost about 3% of the workforce - that's negligable and pretty believable. A downturn in the economy could easily cost that, as would trade barriers.

But you seem to think that if I accept that Brexit could cost 3% of the workforce, I must also believe that iScotland would cost about 40% of the workforce, which is just farcical. I don't care if it comes from the same source, they don't get a free ride for being accurate enough elsewhere.
I'd accept numbers up to about 10% as plausible for both Brexit/iScotland, because they are just that, plausible.

You seem to want me to accept that any job that touches the rUK will cease when Brexit happens, but I genuinely can't see any event that'd cause such widespread economic losses. Even if half of our retailers pulled out of Scotland, the gap in the market they'd create would be huge.

They're from the same institute. The same set of economists. If you believe one from that set of economists why do you not believe the other?

I've never said the jobs will cease, you're making that up. It's risk, plain and simple.

If you're pro-independence you're willing to risk ~1,000,000 Scottish jobs. If you're not, then you're happy to risk ~80,000 jobs.

This particular piece from the same institute that the SNP is using to 'project fear' people into thinking Brexit is the biggest threat shows that independence is actually the biggest threat.

What is there to debate about it? I could join in with the whataboutery and say that an asteroid could hit Scotland tomorrow and all of this talk of independence is pointless since Scotland wouldn't exist. You, me, Bob Geldoff, the Queen and the economists have no idea how many jobs will be lost. They can only tell you how many are at risk, the figures for that are in front of you in this thread as you're aware but are unwilling to accept.

You are indeed cherry picking information because it suits you, you think it's ridiculous that 1,000,000 jobs are linked to rUK and are therefore at risk from independence, but the Brexit 80,000 is feasible because it's what you believe, nothing more.

Who is to say that everything the SNP, Nicola, economists and the pro-independence brigades tell everyone is any more correct about the benefits of independence than the economists who tell you it's going to be a disaster?

TrickyTree83

Herzlos wrote: »

I think both will be bad, but I think Brexit will be far worse for us than iScotland. I was actually a unionist but I have to take what I feel to be the lesser of the 2 evils when my families future is concerned.

Shouldn't it worry you that you're disregarding information from the same economists you trust to tell you the impact of Brexit?

If your family is to be put at risk, independence is the greater of the two, demonstrably.

Edit: You need to factor in everything else that iScotland would suffer from too, the -5.5% GDP from the border effect for example. The deficit, the loss of Barnett, the loss of jobs, the loss of revenue, the loss of trade with your largest market by a factor of 4.

It's astounding, it's not logical to choose independence I'm afraid if you're concerned about the wellbeing of your family. The worst Brexit forecast of 80,000 jobs at risk and 11% of trade at risk versus 1,000,000 jobs at risk and 64% of trade at risk.

Some of you need a reality check.

Shakethedisease

wotsthat wrote: »

Yes, aside from the lack of logic there's a highly unlikely sequence of events that need to take place before the reality of the situation can be assessed.

- polls for independence need to be 60% or 40% so..
- a referendum is called and ..
- the SNP need to convince Scots they'll be better off leaving the Union and
- the EU need to accept iScotland as a member

That's some accumulator bet for anyone feeling lucky.

Hi No, there's only two on that list that are relevant.

1) The polls don't *need* to be anything before calling a referendum. Salmond called one with the polls sitting at 28% for independence. They're now hovering between 44- 49% depending on individual polls. Sturgeon never said the 60% thing, it was reported in a newspaper as coming from a 'source close to the SNP' and seems to have gone viral as some sort of comfort blanket for those not wishing a second referendum/vote. But Sturgeon herself has never said anything of the sort.

2) The legislation for a second referendum is going through Holyrood now. SNP + Greens = majority. If it's presented to Holyrood the legislation will pass.

3) Yes I agree.

4 ) I agree. But over the last few weeks there's no doubt that the EU's overall tone has changed considerably towards Scotland.

JOHN NICOLSON M.P. ‏
"I'm very sympathetic to Scotland's position" says Peter Ramsauer of the German Parliament's Economic Affairs Committee.

JOHN NICOLSON M.P.
"There's no doubt Scotland's entry to the EU would be quicker & easier than any previous applicant" senior EU Committee member tells me.

<-- these were from meetings yesterday.

As you can see above the SNP have been well busy banging the Scottish drum over the past few months. On your accumulator though, only numbers 3 and 4 are actually relevant in any future sequence of events. That and May inevitably refusing to 'allow' one.