Indy2, Scottish pound, and house prices

mrginge

edinburgher wrote: »

Last time I checked, we were already getting both of those as part of our membership of team UK?

Also, I think you meant swingeing.

If you think what you've got today is going to be anything like the taxes and cuts you'll have to bear after independence then you're in for a shock.

edinburgher

I'm a stranger in these parts, but it strikes me that your post (while carefully considered), comes with quite a bit of FUD and assumptions to balance it out.

A few things that jump out at me:

• Why do we need a balanced budget? A quick internet search shows that the UK has only had a surplus in 8 of 60 years (Telegraph 2015)
• You've ignored the possibility that some of the impact of the costs of independence could be offset with growth of the economy (you only show downside)
• Assets = red herring as far as I can see (we could barter/exchange as you say)
• The Scottish economy is not just oil and whisky!

molerat

michaels wrote: »

Hmm, capital flight from an independent Scotland, who would have thought it.

Also note that taxation will have to be much higher in iScotland, espcially for higher earners/holders of wealth.

Last one out to turn off the lights?

A taste of the future that has already started with the rise in council tax on bands E upwards, non core SNP supporter territory, with those at the top end facing a 25% increase this year.

edinburgher

molerat wrote: »

A taste of the future that has already started with the rise in council tax on bands E upwards, non core SNP supporter territory, with those at the top end facing a 25% increase this year.

Yup, 10.5% here at the lower end of that scale and while I'm not happy about it, it's because we're currently on reduced wages, not because I begrudge tax increases per se. There are plenty of legal ways to try and save back anything extra the government takes

TrickyTree83

edinburgher wrote: »

I'm a stranger in these parts, but it strikes me that your post (while carefully considered), comes with quite a bit of FUD and assumptions to balance it out.

A few things that jump out at me:

• Why do we need a balanced budget? A quick internet search shows that the UK has only had a surplus in 8 of 60 years (Telegraph 2015)
• You've ignored the possibility that some of the impact of the costs of independence could be offset with growth of the economy (you only show downside)
• Assets = red herring as far as I can see (we could barter/exchange as you say)
• The Scottish economy is not just oil and whisky!

To be fair, I did say 'if' Scotland wanted to balance the budget, the reason being that perpetual debt is not sustainable, at some point you'll need to run a surplus or a net balance to begin paying down the mountain Scotland will inherit.

I don't believe the Scottish economy will grow as it does currently, as many other much more learned people than myself agree. Can you point to how it's going to grow under such circumstances? If business rates rise, capital gains rises, income tax rises, etc...etc... some of your brightest and best will just nip over the border or into the EU whichever is easier to avoid it all. Currently the Scottish economy has enjoyed larger growth with its rUK neighbours than any other sector of trade, you'll be stifling/cutting that down.

Assets are indeed a red herring, Scotland will not come out with a bumper pay day from the sale or exchange of assets, if anything the rUK will.

I'm well aware the Scottish economy is not just oil and whiskey, but these are the counter-arguments commonly heard when the weakness of the Scottish economic position is pointed out, so I got out ahead and addressed them early.

I disagree that I've used assumptions, all the information I've used comes from the sources I mentioned previously. Scottish government, UK government, academics, economists, etc... I can link to every statistic I've quoted and whilst my recollection may be a few percentage points off since I didn't re-read everything in order to quote it, the broad picture will still remain the same and will be backed up by the statistics.

Edit: Plus, even if there was growth, it would need to be sufficient to eat into the deficit, offset the border effect and offset the loss of Barnett. That would be an economic miracle, highly unlikely, not impossible but as near as.

Edit 2: Update, I need to revise my currency statement in my earlier post. It now appears that Nicola has admitted that they would need to apply to re-join the EU and therefore adopt the Euro...

However, Ms Sturgeon was warned that an independent Scotland would leave the EU regardless of whether it was independent or part of the UK and would need to negotiate to join the bloc - which would mean joining the euro.

http://news.sky.com/story/sturgeon-seeks-second-scottish-independence-referendum-10800578

So no devaluation then, Greece V2.0.

edinburgher

I disagree that I've used assumptions, all the information I've used comes from the sources I mentioned previously. Scottish government, UK government, academics, economists, etc... I can link to every statistic I've quoted and whilst my recollection may be a few percentage points off since I didn't re-read everything in order to quote it, the broad picture will still remain the same and will be backed up by the statistics.

Carefully calculated hypotheticals are still assumptions. By 'assumptions', I am referring to speaking about potential impacts of an independence vote as definite impacts.

This (speaking as someone who doesn't have a political axe to grind, but who wants the best for his family) is what makes it so damn hard to make your mind up on some of the recent political choices that have faced us all in the UK.

While you can reference your assertions, there will be someone along in a minute to debunk these from a pro-independence point of view with their own sources (the internet really likes political chat). I'm not necessarily speaking about this forum specifically, which does seem to be representative of the UK in general (i.e. focused on English concerns). I get that, there are a lot more English people than Scottish people in the UK!

It would be nice if all elections and referenda required a legally binding no-BS proforma that stated facts in a manner that could be digested by all before making their minds up.

Out,_Vile_Jelly

In England there are clear political divisions between comfortable, affluent southern towns, and rundown northern cities and rural areas. Is there the same disconnect in Scotland, or is independence support more evenly distributed?

To be fair to the SNP, they have pretty much taken an entire country off the main UK parties which is an amazing feat of modern politics.

TrickyTree83

edinburgher wrote: »

Carefully calculated hypotheticals are still assumptions. By 'assumptions', I am referring to speaking about potential impacts of an independence vote as definite impacts.

This (speaking as someone who doesn't have a political axe to grind, but who wants the best for his family) is what makes it so damn hard to make your mind up on some of the recent political choices that have faced us all in the UK.

While you can reference your assertions, there will be someone along in a minute to debunk these from a pro-independence point of view with their own sources (the internet really likes political chat). I'm not necessarily speaking about this forum specifically, which does seem to be representative of the UK in general (i.e. focused on English concerns). I get that, there are a lot more English people than Scottish people in the UK!

It would be nice if all elections and referenda required a legally binding no-BS proforma that stated facts in a manner that could be digested by all before making their minds up.

I believe that you believe they can debunk them, except I've been hammering these points on the other Scotland thread for months. There has been no rebuttal, some have even acknowledged it to be the case and say they will vote Yes anyway. The conversation there, on the economics sub-forum has moved away from economics to politics because the argument isn't a comfortable one.

As they (the indy supporters) say, "the same old tired arguments from 2014" are still the best. It's economically dire, and if you're truly wanting to make an informed decision I'd strongly recommend reading the Scotland thread for all of the links and articles. Admittedly Shakethedisease tried to "debunk" the statistics using quotes from online blogs such as Wings Over Scotland and Wee Ginger Dug. Yet these blogs themselves have been routinely admonished for their omissions and lies by opposing blogs, by people such as Kevin Hague and Fraser Whyte, amongst others with no counter because there isn't one. i.e. the pro-indy support claims the official figures (from the Scottish government sometimes!) are wrong, and the anti-indy support prove how the pro-indy support lied or omitted the truth. Round and round in circles they go.

If you want the best for your family it really is a cut and dry decision. If you want your child to continue to enjoy free university tuition, or your parents to enjoy free prescriptions, these things don't look set to disappear in the union. Will you and your spouses jobs be safe outside the union when approximately 1,000,000 Scottish jobs depend on the rUK market and only approximately 80,000 on the EU single market? (Source is the Fraser of Allander Institute for both numbers, the 80,000 figure used by the SNP for campaigning no less).

After all the debates on here I've gotten into over the economics of iScotland, it always boils down to political feeling arguments for the pro-independence support when it becomes clear they're unable to effectively counter the economics, the numbers speak for themselves.

GreatApe

Scotland will be fine.

Their Scottish pound will tank maybe 33% when independent. The result will be that their oil and whiskey in Scottish pounds is worth 50% more scot££s. That immediately helps the tax and GDP position.

They can also take measures like keeping all the TV licence fees spending in Scotland rather than sending it mostly to London. In fact they can probably purchase BBC content for 1/10th its current price and keep 9/10ths of the TV tax to fill part of the budget holes

Scotland will become poorer just means they will have to reduce their imports of goods and services. Things like buying a £200 smartphone every other year rather than a £700 one. Hardly the end of the world. They will have to work more in Scotland so they produce goods and services they were previously importing but that's hardly a negative more local jobs.

Since fundamentally wealth is productivity why would the Scots have a terrible time of it why would their service sector be less productive. Is a Scottish nurse or teacher or fireman or doctor or sandwiches maker less capable than an English one?

davomcdave

edinburgher wrote: »

Last time I checked, we were already getting both of those as part of our membership of team UK?

Also, I think you meant swingeing.

Maybe the poster wants to introduce a Presbyterian theological state and wants to slash swinging.

The big problem that Scotland faces post-Scexit would be the mix of currency and debt. It's a horrible combination because nobody in their right mind would lend to Scotland in its own currency and Scotland, post Scexit, wouldn't initially be generating enough hard currency to service debts. The problem is the same even if Scexit leaves UK with all the debts and leaves debt free.

Scots might still vote Scexit but if they do they are short-term FUBAR'd. Longer term it might or might not work out but Scexit Day +1 they are in a world of pain.

Oh well, not my problem :j:D:j