The finances of an Independent Scotland.

scott_lithgows

Tromking wrote: »

I think there are slightly more than the two variables you cite.
You assume that the EU will carry on merrily as is, when in all likelihood there are major issues ahead for it to deal with, one of which may be a possible break up.
What if Scotland becomes an even bigger basket case within the UK Union and ergo becomes ever more reliant on the pooling and sharing of resources with the rUK?[/QUOTE

The Scots perception of the events from 2018 to 2030 would be the major factor.

From 2014-17 all we had is the nationalists continuing the campaign and with one exception a complete failure of the unionist side to lead the UK not leave as they were challenged to do.


Even if every Scot who has died since the vote was a no voter and every new voter wanted independence it would still take 6 years to produce a yes vote.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

antrobus wrote: »

iScotland will just have to submit its application. I don't expect there would be any problem, most if not all of the acquis would already be in place, so it shouldn't take that long. Or at least not as long as some of the more recent new members.

Quite possibly.

EEA membership could be done much more quickly anyway and gives us the main short term benefits of EU membership (single market, freedom of movement, etc)

I'd be quite happy with that while the EU entry process went on in the background however long it takes.

steampowered

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

I'd be quite happy with that while the EU entry process went on in the background however long it takes.

Assuming, of course, that all of the other EU members agree to Scotland joining.

I would have thought there must be a very good chance that Spain would block an application by Scotland to join the EU, given the strong stance that the central Spanish government is taking against the Catalonian government and their moves to become independent.

zagubov

I've posted on many a thread on this topic, but I've never claimed anyone doesn't deserve to post because of where they were born or where they lived.

It's come to a very sad point if that's now an issue.

A_Medium_Size_Jock

steampowered wrote: »

Assuming, of course, that all of the other EU members agree to Scotland joining.

I would have thought there must be a very good chance that Spain would block an application by Scotland to join the EU, given the strong stance that the central Spanish government is taking against the Catalonian government and their moves to become independent.

Added to which even if Scotland are accepted for membership of the EU, will Scots be happy on a "second rung" of EU member countries?
In full knowledge that their opinions will therefore be worth less than those of Germans; French; Italians etc?
Unlikely, methinks.

It has been said recently that for the EU to if not survive then certainly prosper, a "two speed" Europe is necessary and in fact this will be proposed at a summit in Rome in March.
Not only according to Merkel, either:

Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg, a group of the EU's founding members, also issued a statement on Friday backing a two-speed EU.

https://www.thelocal.de/20170204/merkel-says-europes-future-could-be-two-speed

sss555s

I personally think that Scotland won't be starting from any worse position than they are in if they stay in the UK. We also have Brexit to look forward to, where I'm pretty sure Scotland will suffer far more than the South (Westminster will make sure of that) and considering the Scots didn't even vote for it.

I see the Westminster run UK a bit like the NHS which is a headless money pit, haemorrhaging money with little care or accountability. If the NHS was a private company then it would have to be run much better to survive. So Westminster takes Scotland's taxes then gives them their pocket money but it's a constant battle, just like an employer and employee. Westminster makes Scotland look poor by claiming offshore doesn't count, crediting Scotland with costs like Buckingham palace refurb and HS2 while Scotland has to pay for the Queensferry crossing from it's own means.

Scotland needs to go independent (self employed) or we will never get any more than we get from (employer) Westminster. They will always make us look poor and expect us to be grateful for what we get. That will never change however poor or wealthy the UK becomes.
Even if we start our independence form a poor position we will never look back (just like a good start up company). We have a good intelligent work force, cheaper conditions, great natural resources and a will to succeed.

Scotland has everything it needs to be a successful country raising the standard of living way beyond anything we will ever get from a deceptive Westminster.

.string.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Give or take a few billion, the GERS figures.



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/



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

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

On Gers, so not taking repayment of debt, loss of financial institutions and reduction of trade to BOTH the EU and the UK is consigned to the flippant remark "give or take a few billion"! Good luck to you with that.

On Trident: My remarks are not so fanciful, there is a limit to the number of times the magic word "Trident" can be used as a get-out to avoid debts or extract ransoms. The cost to the UK would be offset quickly by the cost of concessions expected and don't forget the extra money available from cutting off loss-making Scotland (12 or more billion less, possibly, pension stuff).

As for politics, apart from stopping Trident all together there are the advantages of having a home-based military base rather than one subject to the mercenary SNP and the running sore of expenditures in a foreign country.

Finally on the accession to the glories of EU-ship, I refer you to my other post

here

It will be a long hard slog for Scotland to be a member of the EU (only to be absorbed into it by the way).

cogito

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Quite possibly.

EEA membership could be done much more quickly anyway and gives us the main short term benefits of EU membership (single market, freedom of movement, etc)

I'd be quite happy with that while the EU entry process went on in the background however long it takes.

Don't forget the financial benefits too. No more Barnett money, paying membership fees to the EU while not being members and not getting handouts from the EU either. The good news would just keep on coming.

.string.

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

Added to which even if Scotland are accepted for membership of the EU, will Scots be happy on a "second rung" of EU member countries?
In full knowledge that their opinions will therefore be worth less than those of Germans; French; Italians etc?
Unlikely, methinks.

It has been said recently that for the EU to if not survive then certainly prosper, a "two speed" Europe is necessary and in fact this will be proposed at a summit in Rome in March.
Not only according to Merkel, either:

https://www.thelocal.de/20170204/merkel-says-europes-future-could-be-two-speed

Since the population in Scotland is around 5.3 million or so, that puts Scotland below Slovakia in the pecking order: 18th out of 28.

See

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_European_Union#Population_by_nation

It would be sad to see Scotland consumed by the EU - independent? I don't think so.

steampowered

sss555s wrote: »

Scotland needs to go independent (self employed) or we will never get any more than we get from (employer) Westminster.

A quick google search (source) indicates that public spending across the UK as a whole is £11,200 per person.

Yet public spending in Scotland is £12,500 per person.

On that basis alone, Scotland appears to be getting an excellent financial deal.

With that in mind, I am slightly mystified as to why you think Scotland would have more money for public expenditure if it became independent?