Donald Trump

[Andy_Faber]

Looking at it simplistically managing a stable currency involves having compatible common tax, budgetary, spending and borrowing policies - its the same argument about why we didnt go into the euro. if the scotch agreed to all this, they may as well be back in the Union as their financial fortunes would be inextricably linked to that of the residue of england, wales etc. Meantime, if you want to "leave the club" you cant take the membership database with you

Yes that's a good summary of the stream of consciousness I got. But in my exposure to this debate amongst Scots. its similar to the widely held English view on Brexit, many Scots just want out, ISINO (Independent Scotland In Name Only), and bugger still being tied to English economics. Mind you, if you REALLY want to create some heat, point out to a Scot that independence would allow England to adopt the central European time zone. I've seen violence threatened on that one

[Ram59]

Why would they suffer though Swale? They would still garner the best part of £60 billion a year in taxes and maybe a lttle more taking inflation into account. They would not be giving that to Westminster and getting less than 2/3 of it back.

On top of all that they would also be getting the tax on oil, whisky and gin, most of which currently goes into the UK accounts as "English" income, not Scottish, despite what, 80% of it being in "Scottish" waters.

I, and most Scots I know, do not buy this "Sotland will struggle financially without England". Norway has about the same population as Scotland, only about 3/4 of the oil reserves Scotland has and also doesn't have huge income from whisky exports. Norway gets along just fine.

Add in Scotland being able to sell electricity generated in wind farms to England and selling its water to England (something like 90% of England's drinking water comes from Scotland and Wales. More from Scotland than Wales).

I'm quite prepared to accept the Scotland won't cope argument if someone can if someone can explain, giving verifiable facts from a reliable source, why the comparison to a successful Norway doesn't work and why Scotland couldn't cope on a mere £60Bn a year plus all the extra revenue they will get from oil, whisky, gin etc.

I know that we in Brum are fortunate to get our water from Wales, but I've googled about water coming from Scotland and can't find any reference to any pipeline or waterway supplying any water from scotland. Could you point us in the right direction, please MA?

[Ram59]

Also, simple Google searches indicates that current Norwegian oil production is 30% more than the whole of the UK and their reserves are over twice that of the UK.

Please let us know where your figures are coming from MA and I don't class the snp independence brochure as being accurate.

[Ram59]

I don't know where your figures are coming from MA, but looking at the latest Scottish government figures for 2018/19.
The scottish revenue contribution, including its share of the oil is 8.0% of the UK total. The Scottish share of the expenditure was 9.2%.

The UK gov figures back this up claiming to subsidise Scotland to the tune of 15bn per year.

[swaledale]

Why would they suffer though Swale? They would still garner the best part of £60 billion a year in taxes and maybe a lttle more taking inflation into account. They would not be giving that to Westminster and getting less than 2/3 of it back.

On top of all that they would also be getting the tax on oil, whisky and gin, most of which currently goes into the UK accounts as "English" income, not Scottish, despite what, 80% of it being in "Scottish" waters.

I, and most Scots I know, do not buy this "Sotland will struggle financially without England". Norway has about the same population as Scotland, only about 3/4 of the oil reserves Scotland has and also doesn't have huge income from whisky exports. Norway gets along just fine.

Add in Scotland being able to sell electricity generated in wind farms to England and selling its water to England (something like 90% of England's drinking water comes from Scotland and Wales. More from Scotland than Wales).

I'm quite prepared to accept the Scotland won't cope argument if someone can if someone can explain, giving verifiable facts from a reliable source, why the comparison to a successful Norway doesn't work and why Scotland couldn't cope on a mere £60Bn a year plus all the extra revenue they will get from oil, whisky, gin etc.

Ok well lets look at the facts, because those figures your quoting are pure fiction!

The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) a respected economics Institute indeed one which the SNP has quoted in the past have said

"the most recent Scottish government spending and taxation data covering both devolved and UK public spending in Scotland meant the country currently had an effective budget deficit of 8.3%.

The UK’s overall deficit, which included Scotland’s overspending, was 2.3% of UK GDP. That meant UK taxpayers were subsidising Scottish spending by about £1,750 per person, a “fiscal transfer” equivalent to 6% of Scottish GDP. Under the commission’s forecasts the deficit would be more than 7%."

The IFS also said

“Scotland is largely insulated from the consequences of the substantial gap between the government revenues it generates and the government expenditure undertaken in or on behalf of Scotland. This is because the Scottish government gets most of its funding in the form of a block grant from the UK government, and the UK government uses revenues from across the UK to pay for non-devolved items like social security benefits and defence.”

As for Oil the most obvious issue is that the oil price has halved since the 2014 poll, making Scotland’s public finances after independence look far less rosy. To make the sums add up, those advocating independence assumed an oil price of $100 a barrel, double today’s level and factor in the fact that its both a declining resource and demand is likely to decrease in a decarbonizing economy, it is no longer a certain revenue source.

Unlike the UK’s oil and gas sector, Norway’s is owned by the Norwegian Government and therefore a significant proportion of its oil and gas revenues is generated for the people of Norway and used to invest and boosting welfare provision.

Oil and gas revenues are transferred into a sovereign oil fund and each year, therefore ensuring that the revenues are managed with a long-term goal by making sure Norway’s future generations will benefit from the revenues as well. Norway despite producing less oil than the UK had by 2016 generated £650 Billion compared to the Uk's £296 billion.

Now I know thats not the SNP's fault, but the Uk's mismanagement of the North Sea oil revenues has ****ed it for them unfortunately.

You mention whisky, it contributed £4.9 billion, against a GDP of around £170 million.

it is possible to construct the argument from these figures that Scotland paid slightly more in tax than it received in public spending per head from 1980/81 to 2011/12 – largely driven by the oil boom years of the ’80s.

But the calculation all depends on which years you include in the analysis, the assumption that most North Sea oil and gas is “Scotland’s” and the controversial idea that taxpayers in a hypothetical independent Scotland of the past would have paid little or no interest on national debt.

By the way a lot of North Sea oil that Scotland claims is actually in international waters, its just that the Uk and Norway were the only countries close enough to make it economically viable to exploit. So that does raise the question whether it or at the very least a large proportion of it is "Scotlands" oil! However going forward it isn't going to be a significant.

Not sure where you get the idea that 90% of English water comes from Scotland, it simply doesn't, in fact virtually no water comes from Scotland. There is an idea that in the future Scotland could provide water to England, but I would say that desalination plants in England would be more economically viable.

Electricity maybe, but hardly huge, England has large wind farms offshore and more being developed, can't see that as a huge income generator and it isn't available at the moment.

Defence and benefits (including pensions etc.) are significant expenditure that Scotland doesn't pay for at the moment.

Then there are the issues about currency, what bank would act as guarantor - the SNP were proposing keeping Sterling and still using the bank Of England, but the English (and Welsh) government isn't going to agree to that in the long term. The SNP also waffle on about not paying a penny towards the UK debt, again not something the Uk government would agree to.

So an Independent Scotland could exist, obviously, but the IFS report says that at least a decade of austerity would be required, with higher taxes and reduced public spending required which would impact heavily on the living standards of those living there. And thats not a pessimistic view either!

[Geoff Parkstone]

As I suggested earlier, you don't have to look far for completely contradictory data.

My view is if the scotch want independence, then go for it, like Brexit, if a majority (as defined) want it, its their democratic right. It would likely be a lose: lose scenario, and history will show it to be a vanity ptoject. But if they want to leave the union, they don't set the terms, the rest of the UK do. The EU didn't let us dictate the terms whan Brexit was "resolved" - deliberate use of inverted comma - no matter how hard we tried.

So, no use of the pound, border controls VAT and import duties on whisky etc, work permits, Scottish companies in remainder of UK pay tax to Westminster (and vica versa) people resident in "wrong country" will have to chose what nationality they are etc etc. Barbed wire atop Hadrians Wall. Then maybe a trade agreement, maybe not.

It would be madness but if they want the disruption on a point of principle..... I hadn't really thought about it, but SNP are no different from UKIP wanting to break up an effective economic bloc and Westminster is the new Brussels!

[MadAmster]

With regard to water I think I should be more careful as to which of my Scttish friends I trust

[MadAmster]

I don't know where your figures are coming from MA, but looking at the latest Scottish government figures for 2018/19.
The scottish revenue contribution, including its share of the oil is 8.0% of the UK total. The Scottish share of the expenditure was 9.2%.

The UK gov figures back this up claiming to subsidise Scotland to the tune of 15bn per year.

Paid for out of the £20 odd BN a year they don't get back in the block grant?

[swaledale]

Paid for out of the £20 odd BN a year they don't get back in the block grant?

As my post above pointed out, those figures are skewed to look as if Scotland gave more than it got back, not least by omitting mention of social security/pensions and defence spending!

Its possible in certain years to make a case that Scotland was in surplus, but over the long term that is clearly not the case and certainly not today!

[Andy_Faber]

scotch

Now that IS racist!