The finances of an Independent Scotland.

zagubov

antrobus wrote: »

EEA membership is available to any "European State" that either becomes a member of the EU or becomes a member of EFTA. Irrespective of what route is selected, said European State needs the approval of "all Contracting Parties" i.e. the 27 remaining EU states and the 3 EFTA-EEA states.

See article 128 of the Lisbon Treaty.

I cannot see how it would be 'quicker' to take the EFTA route, you still need to get the same 31 countries to agree to this iScotland's membership. Apart from the fact, that if this iScotland was to apply for EFTA, whilst "the EU entry process went on in the background" they are going to tell this iScotland to stop wasting their time and say 'no'. One has to be realistic about this sort of thing.

P.S. You don't get the benefits of the 'single market' through EU memebership, you get them through EEA membership. Any European state that joins the EU, is obliged to apply for the EEA, but it is another process. See Croatia, joined the EU on the 1st July 2013, but had to wait until the 14th April 2014, before getting into the EEA. I believe this was because Norway wanted a bigger duty free quota of herring in return for their assent. (Since it was going to cost them a few krone, anyway.) Which is the kind of trade off that happens in these sort of negotiations.

Interesting thing about EEA membership is that while the three EFTA members individually agree to legislation, the EU members only agree individually in theory but in practise, do so collectively, and in many cases by majority agreement.
In fact, Croatia is considered to now be a member and yet IIRC it's not yet been ratified by all the other members (apart from the EFTA members of course). For example, neither the UK or Spain's ratified it, which doesn't seem to be a problem.
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/documents-publications/agreements-conventions/agreement/?aid=2014013

kabayiri

antrobus wrote: »

...

Being a down to earth kind of person that isn't really attracted to romantic notions of nationhood, I'd keep taking the £8.5bn, while it's still available. That's hard cash on the table.:)

Future populist parties in the UK might be eyeing up this £8.5bn as an easy way of gaining votes from aggrieved/disenfranchised voters in places like NE / NW / midlands etc.

The politics of division seems to be growing, not shrinking.

UKIP don't really have any voting base to lose in Scotland, so they don't risk much by upsetting Scottish voters.

Thrugelmir

GreatApe wrote: »

I don't see why a developed modern educated independent block of 5 million can not be a productive well off nation so long as there is a free floating currency.

Then why isn't it today? What's going to change dramatically in a short period of time?

The Scottish Government needs to be acting now to influence the future.

scott_lithgows

ProDave wrote: »

Some people have the intelligence to realise Scotland is getting a damned good deal at the moment in the UK and why would we want to end that?

The less intelligent think things will be better if we leave the UK and stop receiving that subsidy.

Why are Unionists hiding then? And why does BBC Scotland bang on about another independence referendum as if there is nothing else happening in the world.

With the exception of Ruth Davidson no one has come forward to take on the SNP and those from the 2014 no campaign have lined their pockets and honours very well indeed.

It matters not what your IQ is,if you are continually told you are a burden on the UK you will react badly against it.

Thrugelmir

scott_lithgows wrote: »

And why does BBC Scotland bang on about another independence referendum as if there is nothing else happening in the world.

Nicola and the SNP spin machine ensure that it remains top of the news agenda.

Moto2

scott_lithgows wrote: »

With the exception of Ruth Davidson no one has come forward to take on the SNP and those from the 2014 no campaign have lined their pockets and honours very well indeed.

Because it's just a fantasy, vanity project that the SNP would love to start debating as if it was actually happening. Why would anyone against such a thing humour them?

westernpromise

Scotland is so overspent it couldn't possibly support its own currency.

Scotland is England's !!!!!. It's that simple.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

antrobus wrote: »

Being a down to earth kind of person that isn't really attracted to romantic notions of nationhood, I'd keep taking the £8.5bn, while it's still available. That's hard cash on the table.:)

Indeed.

Which was precisely my reasoning in 2014 for voting No.

However things since then have changed and the Brexit vote means a significant decline in prosperity as part of the UK is now inevitable in my opinion. Not to mention the long term benefits of an indy Scotland being in the EU will likely outweigh remaining in a declining and increasingly isolated UK.

So for those and many other reasons I'll now be voting out...

steampowered

While I agree that Scotland is a net receiver of tax and accordingly there would have to be service cuts or tax rises if Scotland were to declare independence, independence is still possible.

On a GDP per person basis, the United Kingdom is the 27th wealthiest country in the world.

The amount the taxpayer spends per person on Scotland is about 10% higher than in the rest of the UK. So let's say for the sake of argument that after independence Scotland would be about 10% poorer than the rest of the UK. In this scenario Scotland's GDP per capita would be less than the UK but would still be slightly more than Italy and Spain; and would be about equal to Japan and New Zealand.

I don't think that would be great for the Scottish people, but it is hardly a disaster either.

Thrugelmir

steampowered wrote: »

On a GDP per person basis, the United Kingdom is the 27th wealthiest country in the world.

The UK ranks far higher in the Household debt to GDP ratio tables.

GDP is akin to revenue. A figure that means very little when it comes down to hard financial facts.