The finances of an Independent Scotland.

GreatApe

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

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...

I find your posts interesting and think you are one of the beat posters around these parts so I will definitely give you the benefit of the doubt.

In what way would a independent Scotland in the EU be better off than in the UK out of the EU?

Is it just a bluff to slow/stop the UK leaving the EU or do you really think and mean it if so why? Do you think a lot of UK business will flow to Scotland if it were in the EU but out of the UK? So it isn't that the EU is better for the UK but that this particular situation could allow this situation to be beneficial to Scotland?

westernpromise

@ steam powered

No - the mistake you are making is to assume that Scotland generates as much tax as England and has more spent on it than England. That is not so. Net, Scotland generates a tax deficit, not a surplus. Without English money Scotland would not have 10% less - Scotland would have basically nothing. The number of net tax payers in Scotland is some staggering number like 25,000 out of 5 million. A post-Joxit Scotland would be a high-tax backwater that was out of both the UK and the EU with no possible path back in and no currency.

I would welcome this because I think it is about time the taxes raised in the south started to get spent in the south. Scotland is currently a cross between Greece and East Germany without the advantages of either.

antrobus

zagubov wrote: »

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

I believe that to be correct. I actually looked at the text of the announcement that appeared in the Official Journal of the European Union.

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A22014A0611(01)

Which states that "With reference to the Agreement on the participation of the Republic of Croatia in the European Economic Area (‘EEA Enlargement Agreement’) and three related agreements, I have the honour to inform you that the European Union is prepared to apply the EEA Enlargement Agreement from the day following the date on which the last of the Exchanges of Letters on provisional application between the European Union and Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway has been completed, on a provisional basis, provided that Iceland is disposed to do the same."

What I think this means is that, if a European State applies to join the EU, then the negotiations are conducted on the basis that said state will be obliged to also join the EEA, so that when the existing EU member states approve the accession treaty (*), they do so on the basis that both apply, and that any issues that they might have with said candidate becoming an EEA member have already been dealt with.

But of course the EFTA-EEA states will not have been party to the EU negotiations, and thus may have there own issues. In the case of Croatia, I think Norway was obliged by the EU to send Croatia some money and so wanted something in return, which it got in the form of larger duty free quota for herring.

(* In the case of Croatia, we did it by passing the European Union (Croatian Accession and Irish Protocol) Act 2013)

Hintza

sss555s wrote: »

contributing to Buckingham palace upgrades

You obviously haven't a clue where that money is coming from if you think that.

sss555s wrote: »

Anyone with any gumption would realise that getting out from under Westminster's thumb is the only chance to better the long term future of Scotland.

We the majority of the Scots don't agree wth you and I don't see that changing in the next 5 years or so. Most Scots have the gumption to realise that there are many opportunities afforded to them by being in the Union not least job and career opportunities. In days gone by you might reckon that the Scots would hold on to a good p[art of their financial services industry but RBS did their best to destroy that!

.string.

westernpromise wrote: »

@ steam powered

No - the mistake you are making is to assume that Scotland generates as much tax as England and has more spent on it than England. That is not so. Net, Scotland generates a tax deficit, not a surplus. Without English money Scotland would not have 10% less - Scotland would have basically nothing. The number of net tax payers in Scotland is some staggering number like 25,000 out of 5 million. A post-Joxit Scotland would be a high-tax backwater that was out of both the UK and the EU with no possible path back in and no currency.

I would welcome this because I think it is about time the taxes raised in the south started to get spent in the south. Scotland is currently a cross between Greece and East Germany without the advantages of either.

Do you have a link to your remark on 25,000 net tax payers?

Joxit - I've not heard that before, but before I start gleefully using it and run the risk of the wrath of nationalistic sensitivities, I'd like to ask Unionists here if they find that term amusing or, alternatively derogatory; I like to keep my derogatory remarks directed at the SNP, not Scotland.

westernpromise

I stand corrected - it's not 25,000, it's 12%. (source: http://www.scottishconservatives.com/2012/10/ruth-davidson-conservative-party-conference-scottish-fringe-event/2235/). Except that it's not. The assertion was that 50% of the Scotch economy was the public sector and 12% are net taxpayers, which is 160,000 or so. But of course if any of those 12% are in the public sector, then their supposed net tax contribution comes from a salary which is itself 100% funded by taxpayers in the first place. So someone on £100k in the Scotch public sector is not a next taxpayer at all. S/he is still a net taker, just of a bit more than most.

Given that the public sector pays more than the private it is clear that while the number of net taxpayers is more than the 25,000 I had misremembered, it isn't necessarily much more.

Wikipedia suggests that as of 2016 21% of Scottish employment was the state, not including "employees of the government in the civil service and in local government as well as public bodies and corporations" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Scotland#Public_sector). Some of those public sector jobs are obviously coming south if independence ever looked like it was possible, and let's face it, a large fraction of the private sector ones will do so too. In the wake of independence, which sector is going to get tapped up to fund the SNP's payroll vote? Er, that would be the private sector. Their duty to their shareholders will be to head south.

kabayiri

GreatApe wrote: »

....
In what way would a independent Scotland in the EU be better off than in the UK out of the EU?

Is it just a bluff to slow/stop the UK leaving the EU or do you really think and mean it if so why? Do you think a lot of UK business will flow to Scotland if it were in the EU but out of the UK? So it isn't that the EU is better for the UK but that this particular situation could allow this situation to be beneficial to Scotland?

If Scotland does attract business at the expense of rUK, then doesn't she also risk harming a major trading partner/export market?

Independence of any sort is a calculated risk, but to do it whilst your major trading partner is going through major change is surely a bigger risk?

Rinoa

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.:)

Scotland receiving £8.5Bn from England is akin to the UK receiving £80Bn from the EU.

I for one wouldn't have been mad enough to vote leave in that scenario.

mollycat

.string. wrote: »

Do you have a link to your remark on 25,000 net tax payers?

Joxit - I've not heard that before, but before I start gleefully using it and run the risk of the wrath of nationalistic sensitivities, I'd like to ask Unionists here if they find that term amusing or, alternatively derogatory; I like to keep my derogatory remarks directed at the SNP, not Scotland.

I don't think a label for the nonsense that is scottish independence is desirable; a label would give a dying idea some fresh impetus through the novelty value as it "wen't viral";).

TBH most NO voting Scots up here don't even regard "Unionist" as an appropriate collective noun; until recently I regarded unionists as bowler wearing inhabitants of Ulster.

I think "rejecters of an appalling idea" is a better way to categorise NO voters; some NO voters may actually have no great love for the union but quite sensibly recognise independence as much, much worse.

From an ideological perspective, i'm an Internationalist, I believe people should work together in bigger groups towards mutual goals....not isolate and create false distinctions.

All IMVHO of course.

.string.

Thanks mollycat --. Advice taken.