The finances of an Independent Scotland.

Fella

Although to be fair, if somebody Scottish preferred to be Independent & accepted they'd also be worse off, that would be a fair position IMO.

And quite similar to mine on Brexit: I don't know if we'll be better off financially in or out (although my bet is that we'll be better off out). However I'd still have voted to leave all day long even if I knew for certain we'd be worse off financially.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Fella wrote: »

Although to be fair, if somebody Scottish preferred to be Independent & accepted they'd also be worse off, that would be a fair position IMO.

And quite similar to mine on Brexit: I don't know if we'll be better off financially in or out (although my bet is that we'll be better off out). However I'd still have voted to leave all day long even if I knew for certain we'd be worse off financially.

I prefer Scotland to stay in the EU and/or EEA.

If that means Scotland has to be worse off financially I'd still vote all day long for independence if it was the only way to achieve that.

.string.

Hamish - what assumptions are made in the calculation of income from within Scotland out with both the UK and the EU? I suspect they don't take account of the virtually certain decimation of the Scottish financial sector, nor the reduction in trade with both UK and EU single markets, and what is assumed about payment of interest due on Scotland's share if the UK national debt. And it's phased repayment?


What is the real bottom line for the "starting" budgetary deficit, in your opinion?

By the way, Trident is often mentioned as a bargaining chip supporting UK concessions. My take is that the base should be relocated as a long-term term investment rather than maintaining it as a sort of hostage facility.

Lastly, what timescale do think is relevant to Scotland reading the head of the queue to join the EU, or rejoin the UK for that matter?

Fella

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

I prefer Scotland to stay in the EU and/or EEA.

If that means Scotland has to be worse off financially I'd still vote all day long for independence if it was the only way to achieve that.

I'm neutral on Scottish Independence. Or more accurately, I think if Scotland really wants to be Independent I wouldn't try to force it not to be.

OTOH I don't think the SNP should be given another referendum on it unless the English are also allowed to vote. I don't see any reason why Scottish folk should get a vote on being in a Union with the English but the English don't get the same choice.

I'd be amazed if it's anything other than academic though. Scotland would be much worse off if they broke away from the Union therefore I don't see them doing so. Money trumps most other things most of the time.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

GreatApe wrote: »

this needs an independent currency to devalue without it if they stick with the English pound or the euro its trying to do the above with Greece style deflation which would be horrific

Currency deflation is not the solution.

It makes a country and it's inhabitants poorer just as surely as reductions in income.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Fella wrote: »

I'd be amazed if it's anything other than academic though. Scotland would be much worse off if they broke away from the Union therefore I don't see them doing so. Money trumps most other things most of the time.

The UK will be much worse off financially outside of the EU and single market - yet it was voted for anyway - therefore clearly money does not trump everything.

.string.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

I prefer Scotland to stay in the EU and/or EEA.

If that means Scotland has to be worse off financially I'd still vote all day long for independence if it was the only way to achieve that.

But staying in either the EU or the EEA is not going to happen is it? You have been reading too much twaddle from your new SNP friends.

Joining after a period of financial deprevation yes (assuming a Neverendum eventually works), but not "staying in" .

Fella

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

The UK will be much worse off financially outside of the EU and single market - yet it was voted for anyway - therefore clearly money does not trump everything.

No, that is a much-peddled opinion with absolutely no basis in fact. The EU is a financial basket-case that could implode at any moment & being yoked to them financially could turn out to be horrible. You know as well as I do that nobody knows yet what the financial implications of Brexit will turn out to be. Furthermore nobody will really know for a long long time.

On the other hand, that Scotland would be worse off outside the Union is fact, and it's not disputed by anybody with two brain cells to rub together.

Which is to say quite a few of the SNP dispute it, but nobody worth listening to.

scott_lithgows

Voted yes in 2014 but will respect the vote for a generation (16 years?),by 2030 the result of leaving the EU will be plain to see.

The U.K will either be a basket case with the Scots blaming the English for the mess or it will have been a huge success and only a fool would want to leave.

It could go either way but it will decide the union.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

.string. wrote: »

What is the real bottom line for the "starting" budgetary deficit, in your opinion?

Give or take a few billion, the GERS figures.

By the way, Trident is often mentioned as a bargaining chip supporting UK concessions. My take is that the base should be relocated as a long-term term investment rather than maintaining it as a sort of hostage facility.

Good luck with that.

Moving Trident to the very few sites capable of taking it would be politically just about impossible, and cost more than any concievable compromise deal with Scotland.

http://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/why-relocating-trident-away-from-scotland-is-virtually-impossible/

Lastly, what timescale do think is relevant to Scotland reading the head of the queue to join the EU

EEA membership (at least) would be done very quickly.

Full EU membership is a complicated topic - and depends on the successor state argument.