The finances of an Independent Scotland.

MacMickster

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...

Shouldn't the right hand vessel in your image be a deep fat fryer?

sss555s

Hintza wrote: »

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

I still think I'm right. If you're going to "call me out" then where is your proof?

Hintza wrote: »

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!

Well the elected Scottish government doesn't agree with you and there will most likely be another referendum.

sss555s

.string. wrote: »

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.

It's derogatory but that's fine and I wouldn't expect anything less from WesternPrimrose.

I prefer Sexit! :beer:

antrobus

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 understand your argument.

However, I would tend to the view that if leaving an economic trading block that is responsible for 16% of Scottish exports after 45 years or so will result in a some 'decline in prosperity' , leaving an economic trading block that is responsible for 63% of its exports after about 300 years is really going to hurt.

antrobus

sss555s wrote: »

I still think I'm right. If you're going to "call me out" then where is your proof?....

I think Hintza does have a point. "Buckingham Palace is to undergo a 10-year refurbishment costing the taxpayer £369m". Scotland's 9% (or whatever) contribution to that figure is only about £3 million a year. One, that 'saving' isn't going to go very far in terms of replacing that £8.5bn this hypothetical independent Scotland won't be getting. Two, last time I looked SNP official policy was to retain Brenda as head of this new state. So you would still be coughing up your share.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38025513

sss555s wrote: »

...Well the elected Scottish government doesn't agree with you and there will most likely be another referendum.

Unless the Supreme Court issues an injunction. Amongst other possibilities.:)

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

antrobus wrote: »

I would tend to the view that if leaving an economic trading block that is responsible for 16% of Scottish exports after 45 years or so will result in a some 'decline in prosperity' , leaving an economic trading block that is responsible for 63% of its exports after about 300 years is really going to hurt.

Whereas I would tend to view the repeated assertions previously by the leave campaign and latterly by Mayhem's government that no hard border will exist between NI/ROI, and trade will continue to be as unrestricted as it is today, as proof such an arrangement can be worked out on these British isles regardless of the EU membership status of it's various component parts...

So failure to also do so for an iScotland would be seen as nothing but petty spite... Which would properly get the backs up of the Scottish people and cause them to vote to leave in even bigger numbers.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Rinoa wrote: »

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.

Except of course that the net benefit of EU membership to the UK is indeed almost £80bn per year.

And you were mad enough to vote leave in that scenario.

cogito

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Except of course that the net benefit of EU membership to the UK is indeed almost £80bn per year.

And you were mad enough to vote leave in that scenario.

Except of course, it isn't. Have you actually read the exact words in the link that you have posted?

In case it's escaped you, the CBI (partly funded by the EU) took its figures from a report by Price Waterhouse Cooper which receives millions in fees every year from the EU.

Two organisations with their snouts in the EU trough publishing figures that suit their agenda.

Hintza

sss555s wrote: »

I still think I'm right. If you're going to "call me out" then where is your proof?

You need to look at the income from the Crown Estate etc and tou will discover that the Queen pays 100% to the State and and is given 15% back to cover her costs etc. So in short the Queen pays a net tax of 85%.

So any money used for the refurbishment of Buckingham Palace will be a capital expenditure allowance.

Moto2

antrobus wrote: »

I think Hintza does have a point. "Buckingham Palace is to undergo a 10-year refurbishment costing the taxpayer £369m". Scotland's 9% (or whatever) contribution to that figure is only about £3 million a year. One, that 'saving' isn't going to go very far in terms of replacing that £8.5bn this hypothetical independent Scotland won't be getting. Two, last time I looked SNP official policy was to retain Brenda as head of this new state. So you would still be coughing up your share.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38025513

There's a fairly large survey somewhere (by Visit Scotland, I think) that showed how many tourists came to the UK primarily to visit London but also included Scotland in their visit.
Given that a large part of the tourist trade in London is driven by all the royal nonsense, you could wonder how many tourist [enter currency of choice] would be lost to Scotland if a proportion decided not to come to the UK in the first place.
Part of continually maintaining and increasing tourism is keeping things updated.
I'm about as far away from being a royalist as you can find but even I can see the draw and money that they drag in.