The finances of an Independent Scotland.

Herzlos

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

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

Not really. It's all predictions after all. If I predicted the weather tomorrow, would you let me choose which companies to invest your mortgage in?

One prediction is actually plausible, the other is clearly nonsense. I've no reason to disbelieve the 3% figure and no reason to believe the 40% figure.

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

Only if that data is all you're going on, and you're interpreting it in the way you do.

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.

Assuming that we lose trade with our larget market by a factor of 4. It's presumably in rUK's interests to continue with unhindered trade (I'm sure that sounds familiar).
But we'll also get control over what we do with stuff, and protect ourselves from the worst of the decisions coming out of Westminster.

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.

It's just not logical to believe that 40% of the countries jobs are at risk. Where would the losses come from?

Like I said, I'm happy to accept that there's a lot of risk in independence, just as there's a lot of risk in Brexit. But as in the case of the Brexiteers, I feel that risk is worth taking. I'd rather stay in a UK in the EU, but we don't have that option anymore, and I'd chose more or less anything over an unchecked Tory government.

A_Medium_Size_Jock

Herzlos wrote: »

Not really. It's all predictions after all.

Can we take it then that at last you agree that ALL this is just "whataboutery"?
None of it matters.
Absolutely none.
Until such a time as events occur, at least.

As for you wanting to depend upon "more or less anything over an unchecked Tory government." I think we see that in your posts.
Now if you can go and convince enough of the electorate of your POV to change this government, democracy will agree with you.
Until then, this same democracy has chosen the path you now face.

TrickyTree83

Herzlos wrote: »

Not really. It's all predictions after all. If I predicted the weather tomorrow, would you let me choose which companies to invest your mortgage in?

One prediction is actually plausible, the other is clearly nonsense. I've no reason to disbelieve the 3% figure and no reason to believe the 40% figure.


Only if that data is all you're going on, and you're interpreting it in the way you do.



Assuming that we lose trade with our larget market by a factor of 4. It's presumably in rUK's interests to continue with unhindered trade (I'm sure that sounds familiar).
But we'll also get control over what we do with stuff, and protect ourselves from the worst of the decisions coming out of Westminster.



It's just not logical to believe that 40% of the countries jobs are at risk. Where would the losses come from?

Like I said, I'm happy to accept that there's a lot of risk in independence, just as there's a lot of risk in Brexit. But as in the case of the Brexiteers, I feel that risk is worth taking. I'd rather stay in a UK in the EU, but we don't have that option anymore, and I'd chose more or less anything over an unchecked Tory government.

So there's just no getting through to you? You could claim Red is Blue, and I'd prove that Blue is Blue but you'll still believe Red is Blue because it's what you want to think. Gotcha.

The worst decisions aren't coming out of Westminster if independence comes out of Holyrood, that's the whole point I'm making, independence is an ill-conceived lie that people have bought into.

It's completely logical to think that a union of countries that has been around for 300+ years, share the same currency, share laws, governance and sovereignty will be tightly integrated and that a part wishing to leave that union is going to suffer dramatically for it, not on purpose but by their own doing and in fact the remaining members will also suffer. By comparison the EU is a loose association.

No one is talking about job losses, you cannot possibly know that, no one can. So I can't tell you where the losses will come from, only how many jobs depend on Scotland being in the UK, as the kind professor has explained - have you read it yet?

It's a binary option between how many people's jobs you personally want to put at risk, and that's all there is to the figures.

Do you want to risk the jobs of ~80,000 people?

Or do you want to risk the jobs of ~1,000,000 people?

Risk, risk, risk. All of those jobs could be lost, more than those jobs could be lost, less could be lost or none could be lost! But as it stands, those are the numbers from the same economics institute that the SNP trusts of the number of jobs at risk in either scenario.

You make your choices and you take your chances, it doesn't take a genius to see where the smart money goes.

wotsthat

Shakethedisease wrote: »

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.

It's my opinion. After all why would Sturgeon call a referendum she wouldn't be able to win unless it was out of desperation?

I'm sure she's never mentioned 60% and she won't. If/ when she thinks shes got a decent chance of winning she'll play it cool and suggest she's calling a referendum because she's interested in the opinion of Scots based on whatever material change she's trying to highlight.

Another referendum loss will answer the question once and for all. The SNP simply won't call a referendum they think they'll lose even for the 'massive' issue of whether Scotland should leave the Union to join the EU.

If/ when polls are indicating a reasonable chance of a win but brexit has already passed us by a new reason for independence will be fabricated.

Herzlos

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

I think we see that in your posts.
Now if you can go and convince enough of the electorate of your POV to change this government, democracy will agree with you.
Until then, this same democracy has chosen the path you now face.

And that's the problem with being part of a larger voting block with a different political slant. There's what, 1 Tory MP in Scotland, but because of the size differential and the fact that England is happy to vote Tory, it means our say essentially means nothing.

This is the biggest argument for leaving the EU, which you have no problem with, but when it comes to leaving the UK it seems to be anathema. If you support soverignty for one then it only follows to support it for the other.

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

So there's just no getting through to you? You could claim Red is Blue, and I'd prove that Blue is Blue but you'll still believe Red is Blue because it's what you want to think. Gotcha.

Except you haven't proven anything; you've made some vague claim that some guy thinks that one million jobs is at risk (without defining what that means) as a way to claim that independence is going to be so much worse than Brexit, but with nothing to actually prove or confirm it. The reason I don't believe it is because the figure is to clearly garbage.

If you're happy for the UK to take a hit leaving the EU, or are adamant that the Uk won't suffer by leaving the EU, why doesn't the same apply to Scotland?

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

No one is talking about job losses
...
Or do you want to risk the jobs of ~1,000,000 people?

You're either talking about job losses, or your not. Which is it? You're throwing around a big number to make iScotland sound suicidal, but the number is completely meaningless so the threat is also meaningless.

I agree that there are something in the region of 1,000,000 jobs which are in some way linked to the UK, because of the level of integration.
I absolutely do not agree that anything like 1,000,000 jobs are actually at "risk" of anything should Scotland and rUK part ways. It's just not possible that we'll lose half of our private sector jobs overnight. People will still need consumables and services, and our creative and academic positions aren't going anywhere.

I do agree that there will naturally be some ecnomic loss for loosening of ties with rUK, but I don't think rUK will be spiteful enough for that to be a large thing.
I also agree that it'll likely be worse for us than Brexit, at least in the short term and especially if we don't rejoin the EU.
But I absolutely do not agree that it'll be 12.5x worse than Brexit will be alone.

kabayiri

How do we avoid the Scottish independence referendum derailing the complex A50 negotiations with the EU?

The only way I can think of is to carry out the referendum before A50 gets underway.

Moto2

kabayiri wrote: »

How do we avoid the Scottish independence referendum derailing the complex A50 negotiations with the EU?

The only way I can think of is to carry out the referendum before A50 gets underway.

You have about 6 weeks to pull that together

Mind you, it may take some time to type up the A50 notification as it'll have to be drawn up from the original version drafted in crayon.

TrickyTree83

Herzlos wrote: »

And that's the problem with being part of a larger voting block with a different political slant. There's what, 1 Tory MP in Scotland, but because of the size differential and the fact that England is happy to vote Tory, it means our say essentially means nothing.

This is the biggest argument for leaving the EU, which you have no problem with, but when it comes to leaving the UK it seems to be anathema. If you support soverignty for one then it only follows to support it for the other.



Except you haven't proven anything; you've made some vague claim that some guy thinks that one million jobs is at risk (without defining what that means) as a way to claim that independence is going to be so much worse than Brexit, but with nothing to actually prove or confirm it. The reason I don't believe it is because the figure is to clearly garbage.

If you're happy for the UK to take a hit leaving the EU, or are adamant that the Uk won't suffer by leaving the EU, why doesn't the same apply to Scotland?




You're either talking about job losses, or your not. Which is it? You're throwing around a big number to make iScotland sound suicidal, but the number is completely meaningless so the threat is also meaningless.

I agree that there are something in the region of 1,000,000 jobs which are in some way linked to the UK, because of the level of integration.
I absolutely do not agree that anything like 1,000,000 jobs are actually at "risk" of anything should Scotland and rUK part ways. It's just not possible that we'll lose half of our private sector jobs overnight. People will still need consumables and services, and our creative and academic positions aren't going anywhere.

I do agree that there will naturally be some ecnomic loss for loosening of ties with rUK, but I don't think rUK will be spiteful enough for that to be a large thing.
I also agree that it'll likely be worse for us than Brexit, at least in the short term and especially if we don't rejoin the EU.
But I absolutely do not agree that it'll be 12.5x worse than Brexit will be alone.

We're going round in circles.

:wall::wall::wall:

For example...

You're either talking about job losses, or your not

I'm not, I'm talking about jobs at risk, I don't know how many times I have to say it? No one is talking about job losses, they can't possibly know that until the losses occur.

Defining the risk? It's defined the same way that the SNP define the 80,000 job "losses" (as they say) as a result of Brexit. Jobs that are dependent on the market.

~80,000 jobs dependent on the EU in Scotland.
~1,000,000 jobs dependent on the UK in Scotland.

Which has the largest exposure to risk?

If 10% of the jobs at risk were lost, which number is higher?

As you can see only a mere 10% of the 1,000,000 eclipses 100% of the jobs at risk dependent on the EU.

You can't spin this away. It is what it is, binary, simple, the exposure to economic hardship is far greater as a result of independence than it is from Brexit - therefore the SNP are lying. And anyone claiming otherwise is quite clearly wrong just based on this one point alone.

So taking into account:

- the 9% deficit
- the loss of Barnett and the consequentials
- the loss of the UK's credit rating for cheap borrowing
- the exposure of 1,000,000 people to possibly losing their jobs
- the border effect which has been estimated at -5.5% GDP (exasperating the deficit problem)
- the contributions to the EU that will be required (if they'll have you)
- the money required to set up governmental departments and programmes that currently do not exist, those provided by the UK at the UK level
- the requirement to fund your own central bank or become part of the Eurozone (if possible given the deficit)
- the imbalance in trade, Scots trade with EU = 11%, Scots trade with rUK 64%
- repatriation of UK jobs that cannot be done in Scotland, i.e. civil servants & military
- taking on Scotland's share of the UK's debt, and other unfunded liabilities such as pensions

It doesn't look likely, but can you share the economic positives of an independent Scotland?

Will its people enjoy lower taxes?
Will they enjoy better services funded by a burgeoning economy?
Will the oil be able to help you achieve any of this? (I've got some information for you on this if you want.)
Will your wages buy more of the imports you want, or less?






It's laughable. It's like pro-independence supporters are trying to sell ice to Eskimos. Somehow they've hoodwinked some of you, I can only imagine how :rotfl:

Tromking

Herzlos wrote: »

I do agree that there will naturally be some economic loss for loosening of ties with rUK, but I don't think rUK will be spiteful enough for that to be a large thing.
I also agree that it'll likely be worse for us than Brexit, at least in the short term and especially if we don't rejoin the EU.
But I absolutely do not agree that it'll be 12.5x worse than Brexit will be alone.

iScotland is more than a loosening of ties, overnight Scotland becomes a competitor nation to a rUK no doubt smarting from the breakup of the Union and maybe still battling to abrogate the ramifications of Brexit. The political capital in treating Scotland in a less than sympathetic fashion will be substantial. The transformation from a rUK desperate to keep Scotland in the Union from one free from such worries will be shocking to most Scots I fear.
The economic effect of an iScotland will IMO be dwarfed by the social and political costs. The SNP never seem to talk about the 40+% of British Scots who would view independence as being dragged out of the Union against their will. Where have we heard that line before?

kabayiri

Tromking wrote: »

iScotland is more than a loosening of ties, overnight Scotland becomes a competitor nation to rUK
...

And to my mind this is a good thing. iScotland will have a choice : either to try and outcompete or fall by the wayside.

For example, if I wanted to keep some of my financial savings invested with a well known Scottish company, I would be seeking a better return from them. Otherwise I shift the money to an English or Welsh firm don't I?

The SNP argue that Westminster is holding them back, so this would be a golden opportunity to prove if this is true or not.