Independence SE Poll

[Rosssco]

Yep, large economies are all running large deficits, such as Germany (2.16 Trillion Euro) and France (1.98 Trillion Euro) or USA (18.9 Trillion Dolla), but its the relationship between debt to GDP. The other significant difference is the the UK has its own currency, meaning in theory it can never run our of money. An Indy Scotland would not have this facility, and in a currency union, it would have to come bunnet in hand to the BoE should it need some form of currency injection. The availablity of this facility will a combination of views on the stability of the currency and political will in Wastevilmonster..

If you read the IFS report, you will note that the projection for UK deficit is scheduled to fall quicker than Scotlands would. The point being made is that we cannot afford to continue in the vein of a large economy, regardless if we have a slightly lower GDP/ debt ratio as it presents us with the problem of borrowing (the UK can borrow from the BoE in the form of soverign debt to pay for domestic services, which it has been doing) to sustain the level of spending we currently enjoy.

We have to fiscally consolidate in a process similar to what the UK is doing, but all we hear from the nationalists is that we don't need austerity, and that independance is the solution.. Only after we attain a balanced fiscal level (which at present would require significant tax rises and / or spending cuts), then if there's money left over, we could start an oil fund.

[pete]

If you read the IFS report, you will note that the projection for UK deficit is scheduled to fall quicker than Scotlands would. The point being made is that we cannot afford to continue in the vein of a large economy, regardless if we have a slightly lower GDP/ debt ratio as it presents us with the problem of borrowing (the UK can borrow from the BoE in the form of soverign debt to pay for domestic services, which it has been doing) to sustain the level of spending we currently enjoy.

That's a different use of tense the different parts of the UK have.

The SNP publish dreams and fictional white papers.

The Westminster government makes reliable projections.

[Rosssco]

I wasn't quoting UK gov info, just the report by the IFS, who are independant and impartial of governments.

[campbell]

My vote is now cast. Thank God it's all over.

[pete]

I wasn't quoting UK gov info, just the report by the IFS, who are independant and impartial of governments.

You are right. I thought it was a govt dept and it's not.

Although I still maintain I made a good joke - Just in the wrong place.

[Corranga]

I'm convinced on finances: It's very much a "No" for me. The oil-fund is a farce, income is unstable, and we're running at a large loss which we can better afford to manage as part of a larger economy.

Next issue for me is defense. I quite like the Yes defense plans, and strongly disagree with the disproportionate role that the UK insists on taking in world affairs, at great financial and human cost. In a nutshell: http://www.yesscotland.net/answers/what ... sh-defence

The UK spends far too much on defense for my liking, proportional to GDP and per capita. I think £2.5bn spending plan for Scotland's defense is proportional, and 15k permanent troops is reasonable. It's inline with other NATO countries by size and wealth. I dislike the way bases are closing in Scotland and moving south, and if we're going to pay for defense, I'd like it to benefit Scottish communities and economy.

Of course, it relies on us just walking away with military assets that nobody has agreed we can have, and being allowed to join various alliances, which is not guaranteed.

Next issue, all defense contracts in Scotland will head south. No more ship-building. I can't work out what the cost of this loss of skilled work would be, to balance that with the increase in economic boost from our defense spending staying in Scotland, but my gut feeling is we'll be worse off economically. Figures would be nice.

Better together's main argument seems to be "UK has the best forces in the world, stay with us", but I don't agree... I can't stand the UK policy of policing the world and wading into every conflict. I personally don't feel like Scotland is under any threat from terror. The worst attack any terrorist managed up here was halted by a swift kick in the balls by an airport worker. If we keep out of other peoples' wars, they won't come looking for us any more than they plan to invade Denmark or Luxembourg. We can spend on having an army, and contribute to peace-keeping proportionally without being the instigators every damned time.

Anyone got any views one way or the other? A very strong promise to stop looking for trouble, and a reasonable financial impact assessment might be a tick in the Yes box for me.

This post is great, and makes lots of sense in a perfect world, but the problem is, it's not a perfect world. We can't be compared to Denmark or Luxembourg simply because neither of them have decades of history being involved in conflicts and pissing others off. Cutting out defences could well be opening the flood gate to terrorists, left over Gaddafi forces, Iraqi's seeking revenge, Islamic extremists, and, well, since we've been in bed with the US for so long, more or less anyone that doesn't like them - and I'm talking about the UK in general, not just iScotland.
Now, in iScotland, not only do these same threads exist, but also, iScotland could potentially become even more of a target due to low defences and proximity to London. People like to think that London is a million miles from Scotland, but the reality is not much more than 300 miles.
Personally, I'd love to chop the defence spend up and push it towards debt repayment, it makes lots of sense to me, but people much smarter than me have decided otherwise, and we all trust them with our protection and our lives.
I sincerely doubt that the current government spend all this money on trident etc. because it makes them look good - the majority of people I talk to seem to be of the same opinion regarding the cut. I think that people simply see defences as a money pot, and have completely forgotten why they exists.
It's so easy to stand up and point at nuclear weapons and say we don't need them because they'll never be used, and to the majority of folk it seems to ring true, but when you view them as they are - a defensive mechanism, not an offensive one, then would you stand up and say you are taking away the countries biggest shield? Something that was put in place by experts that probably know more than all of us combined, and who presumably, for national security reasons can't stand up and argue back?

I hate to point out the obvious, but the UK figures are there as well. In or out we are still running up a massive national debt. Sorry, massive is scare mongering, it's COLOSSAL.

National Debt Clock

What the figures show is that we don't generate as much of the debt as the rest of the UK. On the GERS figures for 2011-2012 Scotland GDP/head was £28,496 against the UK's of £24,122. We spent 113% of GDP or an overspend of £7.6bn. The UK was 121% of GDP or an overspend of £121bn. For that year Scotland's deficit against GDP was 5% the UK was 7.9%. So we received 5% of the national debt that year but our interest payments are population based and so we paid 8.4% of the debt repayment figure, or £4.1bn of the £52bn debt interest repayment.
The 2 largest parts of the Scottish deficit for that year was debt interest repayment and defense. Scotland's revenue that year was £56.9bn, our identified expenditure that year was £55.5bn, our allocate expenditure was £9bn which is for the things not devolved and in control of Westminster. The 2 largest were defense £3.3bn and debt interest payments £4.1bn.
2012/13 Scotland lagged behind the UK for the first time in 30 years, due in large part to the reduction in oil revenue. Now can me cynical, but this was also the first year the oil companies got extra tax breaks for write downs against profits and also the lost production from the Elgin shut down. But historically not the norm, the sort of thing an oil fund can protect against, however small.

Whilst we don't generate as much of the debt as the other parts of the UK, you still state that the highest part of the Scottish deficit is debt repayment - if you can even call it repayment since the debt is growing! In iScotland, we'd have to seek a currency union, whether we get it or not, there is nothing to say that our loan, and future money borrowed would be at the same rates. Surely iScotland could easily see itself in a situation where it is borrowing less than it did when we were in the UK, and paying more for it?
You are right, an oil fund can protect against these things, but you seem to be forgetting that we don't have one. An oil fund won't appear overnight, and creating one whilst we have such a huge national debt is crazy. Had the SNP come up with a feasible economic system for Scotland that completely ignored oil so it could be written off against debt, we'd be on to a winner. The fact is that they have oil both paying for us to continue surviving, and somehow going into a massive savings pot for future use, whilst paying for national debt with... well, who really knows.

[graeme]

I doubt very much that Scotland will incur the wrath of radical Islam the minute we're an independent nation. Nor would it instantly become an easy target. However, after reading that defense report and a bit more Googling, I think our armed forces would be pretty weak, and I don't believe the annual savings quoted in running them. Spending will be at least the same, if not higher when we lose the economies of scale, and our actual defense ability will be greatly reduced.

However, I'm not decided that having reduced capability is a bad thing, even at the same or higher OPEX. The same or higher spending will trickle back to our economy more than it does now, and we can be more specialised for our own needs. Have three or four air-sea rescue bases for example. I don't believe we need the levels of military intelligence, nukes, special forces numbers etc that we fund at the moment. Many nations don't have MI6 and manage just fine. The UK needs it because it's a superpower and an aggressor. Scotland could happily exist without it, however we'd have to pay for "outsourcing" what we do need, which I don't believe Yes have taken into account. If Scotland was very clearly passive/defensive as a nation at home, and a dedicated peace-keeper abroad, and refused to get involved in aggressive UN/NATO deployments then we could easily survive with a small military specialised in home defense, coastal defense, oil asset defense. In fact, in defense full stop, which is what a military should be doing. Most of what UK does abroad I don't consider to be defensive.

So, I have an idealised dream of a Scottish military that might sway me towards a Yes. But I don't actually see anything that says my dream will be the reality, and there's one big thing missing from the Yes plan: the setup costs. They will be MASSIVE. Hundreds of billions. And whatever they're calculated to be at the beginning, double it, because we can't even build a tram without blowing budgets sky-high. Building a military from scratch will be hilariously f*cked up from day 1. I don't mind that our OPEX will be the same or higher, but I do mind that there's no mention of where the CAPEX will come from in the first place. It'll be borrowed, and it'll go on Scotland's debt clock with higher interest rate than before, and make it spin proportionally faster than the UK's does now.

The oil fund is a myth. It will not exist in any form unless the debt is zero and the defict becomes a surplus. You can ring-fence income all you like, but having £5 in your rainy-day jar doesn't mean a thing when you've maxed out all your credit-cards and living off pay-day loans. You're still broke; you just happen to have somebody else's fiver in your hand. You *could* spend it if you were starving, but it doesn't change your financial position one bit if you do, because it was never yours.

[Mikie711]

Whilst we don't generate as much of the debt as the other parts of the UK, you still state that the highest part of the Scottish deficit is debt repayment - if you can even call it repayment since the debt is growing! In iScotland, we'd have to seek a currency union, whether we get it or not, there is nothing to say that our loan, and future money borrowed would be at the same rates. Surely iScotland could easily see itself in a situation where it is borrowing less than it did when we were in the UK, and paying more for it?
You are right, an oil fund can protect against these things, but you seem to be forgetting that we don't have one. An oil fund won't appear overnight, and creating one whilst we have such a huge national debt is crazy. Had the SNP come up with a feasible economic system for Scotland that completely ignored oil so it could be written off against debt, we'd be on to a winner. The fact is that they have oil both paying for us to continue surviving, and somehow going into a massive savings pot for future use, whilst paying for national debt with... well, who really knows.

The point I was trying to make was that we pay a population based share of the interest repayments but have never received a population share of the debt. So we are in effect overpaying on the debt we actually received. It's just one example of how the deficit figures are skewed.
Yes we have to reverse this overspend situation, but all the figures I have seen so far are based on policy that is in place now, so if we carry on doing what we are doing this is how it would play out. But, given that a independent Government would have greater fiscal control on ALL spending as well as ALL tax raising then they would have the opportunity to tailor policy towards stimulating growth in our own economy.
Of course there is a concern that they will screw it all up and get it wrong, but that is why we are in this mess in the first place. Remember it was Darling that racked up the majority of the debt. When Labour took office the national debt was £350bn, and from 2007 to 2010 he racked up a further £700bn in debt, hardly the go to guy for financial advice. So, forgive me if I treat any figures he bandies about with a certain amount of incredulity and skepticism.

[pete]

Consider this.

Cameron, our Prime Minister simultaneously thinks Scotland should remain part of the UK, yet he won't come up here and debate with local elected politicians or speak publicly.

And folk defend this buy saying "Ah well everyone hates him and all he stands for". So he sends a backbench opposition MP in his stead.

Madness.

[j2 lot]

Was as Cameron not speaking in Glasgow yesterday? He was certainly doing so on 23rd July when he spoke at both the University and the Chambers, just because you weren't invited doesn't mean it didn't happen Pete


Edit to add: He was also in Glasgow on 4th August for the WW1 Commemorative ceremony at the Cathedral, although obviously not involved in public debates then.

[David]

Consider this.

Cameron, our Prime Minister simultaneously thinks Scotland should remain part of the UK, yet he won't come up here and debate with local elected politicians or speak publicly.

And folk defend this buy saying "Ah well everyone hates him and all he stands for". So he sends a backbench opposition MP in his stead.

Madness.

IMHO a referendum is essentially a Government opting out of the decision process and the natural course of action is to let the interested parties get on with it. That not to say that people out side of it (Scotland) should not make their view known, just that it's not their debate, and they do not need to argue their case. They are best to respect the process for what it is.

[woody]

Consider this.

Cameron, our Prime Minister simultaneously thinks Scotland should remain part of the UK, yet he won't come up here and debate with local elected politicians or speak publicly.

And folk defend this buy saying "Ah well everyone hates him and all he stands for". So he sends a backbench opposition MP in his stead.

Madness.

Given were constantly being told it's not about Salmond, think we can agree it's even less about call me Dave?

[pete]

Consider this.

Cameron, our Prime Minister simultaneously thinks Scotland should remain part of the UK, yet he won't come up here and debate with local elected politicians or speak publicly.

And folk defend this buy saying "Ah well everyone hates him and all he stands for". So he sends a backbench opposition MP in his stead.

Madness.

Given were constantly being told it's not about Salmond, think we can agree it's even less about call me Dave?

Look you bunch of Tory apologists. He was up speaking to the CBI, or donors as he likes to call them. Not his subjects*.

He was not here to speak to or meet his people, he makes pronouncements from the safety of London. I'm not saying I don't understand I just think it is interesting. To me.


*It was a joke!

[Mikie711]

Given were constantly being told it's not about Salmond, think we can agree it's even less about call me Dave?

Constantly throughout this thread people bring up Salmond this, Salmond that. You can't have it both ways, Oh wait,that's right you can and have done regularly.

[point n squirt]

Thanks to all SE'rs for there posts over what seems to have been years now ,I have found the info provided by all very useful in my own search for a decision. As I sat at my table tonight I looked at the ballot paper then at my two year old son playing on the floor and still swayed between boxes before taking a deep breath and ticking one, was a strange feeling but its done so I can now get back to surfing for fun stuff instead of politics thank god..........cheers and good luck with your own choices.