Scotland votes no to Independence

[SkinnyDave]

Clearly not

I'm waiting in you working it out lol

I'll give you a clue rest of UK does NOT subsidise Scotland the only correct part is that spending is higher per person

 

[Yew]

Fire away please! Unlike you I am not an economics professor

Confirmation Bias?

 

[DarloRich]

Clearly not

I'm waiting in you working it out lol

I'll give you a clue rest of UK does NOT subsidise Scotland the only correct part is that spending is higher per person

Your point seems to be that without the money from London and the south east the rest of the UK is in deficit and supported. Sadly for scots that isn’t the issue here. Those areas will still get their subsidy from London. Scotland won’t.

Now you think that Scottish taxation will make up that shortfall once the prop is gone. At current levels I don’t think it will.

In fact as we pay Scotland more than we get back we should be better off!

 

[SkinnyDave]

Your point seems to be that without the money from London and the south east the rest of the UK is in deficit and supported. Sadly for scots that isn’t the issue here. Those areas will still get their subsidy from London. Scotland won’t.

Now you think that Scottish taxation will make up that shortfall once the prop is gone. At current levels I don’t think it will.

In fact as we pay Scotland more than we get back we should be better off!

Your bottom sentence is wrong lol as mentioned before

That's not the point I'm making but since you bring London and South East there are two areas of the UK making net contributions to the economy one being Scotland the other being London and the South East..

That can't continue regardless of the result in September but I fear that Independence for Scotland will be needed for Westminster to realise there is a much bigger country out there beyond the Watford gap

 

[Yew]

Your bottom sentence is wrong lol as mentioned before

That's not the point I'm making but since you bring London and South East there are two areas of the UK making net contributions to the economy one being Scotland the other being London and the South East..

That can't continue regardless of the result in September but I fear that Independence for Scotland will be needed for Westminster to realise there is a much bigger country out there beyond the Watford gap

You still havent given us any figures for to corroborate your assertions. Until you do, I am afraid I cannot beleive you.

I do however agree with your last sentence though!

 

[DarloRich]

Your bottom sentence is wrong lol as mentioned before

That's not the point I'm making but since you bring London and South East there are two areas of the UK making net contributions to the economy one being Scotland the other being London and the South East..

That can't continue regardless of the result in September but I fear that Independence for Scotland will be needed for Westminster to realise there is a much bigger country out there beyond the Watford gap

Scotland pay in 43bn and take out 59bn. It doesnt seem that they are a net contributor to the economy. To me it seems they are at best running an overdraft

 

[SkinnyDave]

Scotland pay in 43bn and take out 59bn. It doesnt seem that they are a net contributor to the economy. To me it seems they are at best running an overdraft

Yes I know it does seem that way that's why I'm waiting on you working it out lol
As mentioned before Scotland does receive more spending per head I've agree that point
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

You still havent given us any figures for to corroborate your assertions. Until you do, I am afraid I cannot beleive you.

I do however agree with your last sentence though!

I've got the figures I'm awaiting on Darlorich to work it out the facts to prove Scotland does not pay its way are easily available

 

[DarloRich]

you are going to have to tell me as i cant work it out.

 

[SkinnyDave]

How much debt is added to Scotland's expenditure figures?

 

[DarloRich]

How much debt is added to Scotland's expenditure figures?

None on those 2010 figures as far as i am aware. I hadnt considered any debt loading as i assumed this was up for negotiation following a yes vote. interesting.

 

[SkinnyDave]

None on those 2010 figures as far as i am aware. I hadnt considered any debt loading as i assumed this was up for negotiation following a yes vote. interesting.

It is there and has been put in figures..be tried to post a link up but it's not playing on my tablet
Fact is Scotland can afford to be independent (depends on which political party gets in mind you)
will England notice a difference if Scotland does go independent? the answer to that is No, this perceived subsidy that England gives Scotland will not magic up a lot of money to be redistributed to rest of UK

In my view If Scotland doesn't bottle it the rest of the UK need to start focussing on where the real problem is and it's London (the establishment not the people) the UK needs real political and economical change
Further devolution with regions or proportional representation? I don't know what the answer is but I think if Scotland goes for if then it's an opportunity not to be missed for the rest of the country..
And with that I'm going for dinner

 

[Altnabreac]

To save us all from the suspense I suspect Skinny Dave's point is that although Scotland spends more than it earns it does so at around the same rate or perhaps slightly lower than the rest of the UK.

What Darlo Rich has failed to take into account is the fact the entire UK runs a major budget deficit so the fact individual parts of the UK also run a budget deficit is neither a surprise, nor a confirmation that they are subsidised by the rest of the country.

You can argue about the exact figures and it varies year on year but in general of the countries and regions of the UK the most subsidised is Northern Ireland followed by Wales and the North East. The 3 in surplus are the South East, London and Scotland. The other 7 regions of England run a slightly smaller subsidy but are still a net cost to the UK.

 

[NotATrainspott]

To save us all from the suspense I suspect Skinny Dave's point is that although Scotland spends more than it earns it does so at around the same rate or perhaps slightly lower than the rest of the UK.

What Darlo Rich has failed to take into account is the fact the entire UK runs a major budget deficit so the fact individual parts of the UK also run a budget deficit is neither a surprise, nor a confirmation that they are subsidised by the rest of the country.

You can argue about the exact figures and it varies year on year but in general of the countries and regions of the UK the most subsidised is Northern Ireland followed by Wales and the North East. The 3 in surplus are the South East, London and Scotland. The other 7 regions of England run a slightly smaller subsidy but are still a net cost to the UK.

Precisely. One of the major downfalls of the No campaign is that it has basically said that the United Kingdom is the best of all possible worlds (a few constitutional changes nonetheless), being a bastion of complete stability and certainty that no other country on this dear earth can beat. However, when you look closely you see that in reality, it faces severe problems, not least of which is the fact that the public has become so disillusioned with politics. The Tories and the Lib Dems separately promised to not reform the NHS in their 2010 manifestos, and the Coalition Agreement said the same thing. Instead they have embarked upon the single most top-down reform of the NHS that there has ever been, a process which alone will cost hundreds of millions, if not billions, of pounds. These are the same people who are promising the earth to Scotland if it stays, so I don't think anyone on this forum can criticise many Scottish people for not believing them. The death of the Labour party has meant that the only real alternative to these two is now no different, because of the sheer power of the media to push the political centre rightwards. That process is nowhere near as bad in Scotland, and at this point in time it is still possible to salvage the promise of a centre-left social democracy from the clutches of those who stand to gain so much from its breakup and privatisation.

 

[DarloRich]

To save us all from the suspense I suspect Skinny Dave's point is that although Scotland spends more than it earns it does so at around the same rate or perhaps slightly lower than the rest of the UK.

What Darlo Rich has failed to take into account is the fact the entire UK runs a major budget deficit so the fact individual parts of the UK also run a budget deficit is neither a surprise, nor a confirmation that they are subsidised by the rest of the country.

You can argue about the exact figures and it varies year on year but in general of the countries and regions of the UK the most subsidised is Northern Ireland followed by Wales and the North East. The 3 in surplus are the South East, London and Scotland. The other 7 regions of England run a slightly smaller subsidy but are still a net cost to the UK.

I understand that the English regions have a "subsidy" but that doesnt matter here.

How can there be a scottish surplus when the best figures show a c.16bn gap between income and expenditure. London will carry on supprting England Wales and Northern Ireland. Scotland must support themselves.

IF they want similar services to those enjoyed now how will they make up the shortfall?

I must be thick but it seems to me scotland is spending more than it earns.

 

[NotATrainspott]

I understand that the English regions have a "subsidy" but that doesnt matter here.

How can there be a scottish surplus when the best figures show a c.16bn gap between income and expenditure. London will carry on supprting England Wales and Northern Ireland. Scotland must support themselves.

IF they want similar services to those enjoyed now how will they make up the shortfall?

I must be thick but it seems to me scotland is spending more than it earns.

What we're saying is that exactly the same is true for the UK as a whole. Per capita Scotland is in a less bad position financially, and given that the country has a positive balance of trade and, without oil, is still far stronger than the majority of places in England and Wales, it seems that it is not really too bad an option.

Remember that the ratings agencies said that Scotland would be more than deserving of a good credit rating, and they do not appear to be fazed at all by the prospect of Scotland rejecting its share of the national debt. Financial markets base their decisions on borrowing costs on the ability of a country to guarantee it will pay back its loans. They are more than aware that even if we do not take on our share, that their money is more than safe. There are no 'Scottish' bonds at the moment; there are only UK ones and the Treasury has promised that in any event they would honour them. If you look at how much North Sea oil has subsidised the rest of the UK in the past, it is possible to make a case that Scotland should not take on its share of the debt because it was not responsible for creating it. A domestic analogy would be to say that one partner had a salary but the other partner had none, instead relying solely upon credit to pay for day-to-day things. If they divorce, is it fair for the salaried partner to take on a share of the debt when they were not responsible for the creation of that debt?

 

[Altnabreac]

I must be thick but it seems to me scotland is spending more than it earns.

All of the UK is speeding much more than it earns.

Scotland is doing so at about the same rate as the UK average (just below most years).

North East of England and Northern Ireland are doing so well above the UK average.

South East England and London do so slightly below the UK average but still spend more than they take in for a net deficit each year.

As the debt from this net budget deficit is shared across the UK this is where the "subsidy" comes from to most UK regions from London, SE and Scotland.

Now you can make a decent argument about continued borrowing at current UK levels being unsustainable for Scotland post independence. However demanding Scotland gets less money if it stays in the Union when it is the 3rd best performing of the 12 regions and countries of the UK seems a little churlish.

 

[DarloRich]

What we're saying is that exactly the same is true for the UK as a whole. Per capita Scotland is in a less bad position financially, and given that the country has a positive balance of trade and, without oil, is still far stronger than the majority of places in England and Wales, it seems that it is not really too bad an option.

Remember that the ratings agencies said that Scotland would be more than deserving of a good credit rating, and they do not appear to be fazed at all by the prospect of Scotland rejecting its share of the national debt. Financial markets base their decisions on borrowing costs on the ability of a country to guarantee it will pay back its loans. They are more than aware that even if we do not take on our share, that their money is more than safe. There are no 'Scottish' bonds at the moment; there are only UK ones and the Treasury has promised that in any event they would honour them. If you look at how much North Sea oil has subsidised the rest of the UK in the past, it is possible to make a case that Scotland should not take on its share of the debt because it was not responsible for creating it. A domestic analogy would be to say that one partner had a salary but the other partner had none, instead relying solely upon credit to pay for day-to-day things. If they divorce, is it fair for the salaried partner to take on a share of the debt when they were not responsible for the creation of that debt?

There is no way Scotland are walking away without thier share of the national debt. None what so ever.

 

[NotATrainspott]

There is no way Scotland are walking away without thier share of the national debt. None what so ever.

From a legal perspective there is no reason why they would not be able to. Westminster is bound to accept Scotland as an independent country by the Edinburgh Agreement, regardless of the specifics of the negotiations.

Something that has to be asked is aside from the concept of a currency union, what other things would actually be shared between the two countries? The armed forces are going around saying that a Scottish bit can't be broken off like a chocolate bar. Assets like embassies would be meaningless to officially share given that all Scottish citizens would remain citizens of the UK regardless of the outcome, for the simple reason that no one can be forced to give up their UK one and the independent Scottish state would see resident rUK citizens as having the same rights as Scottish ones. Beyond that any EU citizen has a right to consular assistance from any other EU embassy, so the UK could not deny Scottish passport holders use of their embassies and if they did we would just use Ireland or another EU state's. Scotland would not be willing to have only a share of the most important embassies and high commissions in any case for particularly long - we would buy fancy houses in Washington DC, Paris, Berlin, Beijing etc during the transition period so that our place as an independent country was immediately established.

The only assets that the UK government are actually guaranteed to let us have are those that already exist physically within Scotland. No matter how absurd negotiations get, the UK Parliament cannot ask Network Rail to go and dismantle the Forth Bridge. Any assets that have been privatised would be unable to be changed, including the entire railway system and its plans for the future, unless the UK government wants to destroy capitalism and its place in the world (what would happen to the rUK if all that capital in London were to flee in the way that capital in Russia has fled to London?). For all the things that Scotland depend upon that are in the rUK, there are things that the rUK depend upon that are in Scotland, so as a stalemate is makes perfect sense to allow both to work as normal during a transition period. Given that the Tories would be more than happy to outsource the DVLA operation to the French Atos company, it would be bizarre for them to reject the idea of other 'essential' services being effectively outsourced to an independent Scotland on commercial terms in return for a commercial outsourcing of Scottish functions to rUK institutions like the DVLA. The UK Government's propensity to regularly spend billions of pounds on replacement IT systems means that the chance to separate the systems, if need be, would arise sooner rather than later as part of a normal complete failure of a new government programme.

Overall it is not surprising why the suggestion has realistically been put forward, and why the SNP position is that we want to pay our share as part of a currency union but that we would be more than willing to reject a share if we don't get one. Scotland's oil wealth has been spectacularly mismanaged by successive UK governments, and its current debt woes are as a direct result of needing to bail out the banks. RBS and HBOS may have their 'brass plate' in Edinburgh but when push comes to shove you see that they are just as much a London bank as any other, and it was the economic policies of the UK as a whole that made them too big to fail. If there is no central bank capable of rescuing a bank the size of RBS etc in Scotland, then they will move their brass plate down to London and the rUK taxpayer will be totally on the hook for the future failings once again. There is no situation in which rUK taxpayers would never have to bear the burden of the failing big Scottish banks, as the alternative of letting them fail would directly damage the rUK economy just as much as it would damage Scotland.

 

[St Rollox]

A month from the possible end of the UK PLC with a 300 year old union and it comes down to 4 pages on the forum.
What to make of that i don't know.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

A month from the possible end of the UK PLC with a 300 year old union and it comes down to 4 pages on the forum.
What to make of that i don't know.

I suggest that there are plenty other fora in which the matter is being debated vigourously and that RailUK is probably not among the more natural places for that debate to reside.

But here's my quick 3 thoughts on the matter:

1. The greatest focus of the discussion is Scotland's future. I am astonished by that. The crisis that might follow and for which contingencies should be in place is the failure of governance in England. Are the English really so indifferent to self governance that they would be happy to continue beyond Scottish independance without an English Government? I doubt it. So why are the English so silent on their democratic sterility? Do the English really want to go forward into the 21st Century as the seat of a former Empire that has now become a confederate state without even its own government?

2. Where will be independant Scotland's ultimate Court of Appeal be located?

3. What will Scotland's political future be if the result of the referrendeum is Yes to independance but in the next elsection is No to the SNP?

And as a personal dissatisfaction: Why does the nation apply the same eligibilty criteria of a political election to the referrendum? As the result of the referrendum determines Scottish people's nationality and governance, it is worrying that Scottish people living elsehere (incl. England) or disenfranchised (e.g. prosoners) are also denied the opportunity to vote on their own nationality or on their nation's governance.

 

[NotATrainspott]

I suggest that there are plenty other fora in which the matter is being debated vigourously and that RailUK is probably not among the more natural places for that debate to reside.

But here's my quick 3 thoughts on the matter:

1. The greatest focus of the discussion is Scotland's future. I am astonished by that. The crisis that might follow and for which contingencies should be in place is the failure of governance in England. Are the English really so indifferent to self governance that they would be happy to continue beyond Scottish independance without an English Government? I doubt it. So why are the English so silent on their democratic sterility? Do the English really want to go forward into the 21st Century as the seat of a former Empire that has now become a confederate state without even its own government?

The country of England has its own Parliament in the form of the UK one. If you created a wonderful English Parliament and basically left the UK one as-is, you would never have a different party in power than the UK, thus negating the whole point of the exercise. The only situation that new regional parliaments could be created would be to smash up England into manageable chunks and unfortunately that is a recipe for complete disaster. You need them to be relatively comparable in order for the system to work but there is no way to do that without needing to completely invent new regional identities - no one says 'I'm a South-West Englander', they say they're from Devon or Cornwall. but those places are far too small for it to work. London and the South East is a complete disaster for this because you could never have regions where the majority of people stay and work within that region, making economic and political decisions possible. If you let London do as it wishes, there are so many people who commute into work every day from the rest of the country that you would have many more jobs than people in London and many more people than jobs in the surrounding areas. The only way to avoid this is to include all the commuter belt in one region, but that leaves you with basically half the population and after HS2 is built it leaves you with basically the entire country as an inseparable economic region.

2. Where will be independant Scotland's ultimate Court of Appeal be located?

Such matters would be what the process of writing a constitution would be there to solve. We could have it in Montrose if we so desire. The Parliament of Scotland would be just as able to change Scots Law as the UK Parliament can change the law of England and Wales.

3. What will Scotland's political future be if the result of the referrendeum is Yes to independance but in the next elsection is No to the SNP?

We aren't voting for the SNP to be government in perpetuity. The White Paper is what the SNP government believes can be done when becoming an independent state. However, if we elect a different party or set of parties to Holyrood then it could be very different. If the elected government decides to switch to a separate Scots pound pegged at 1:1 and to create our own central bank then that is entirely our prerogative. The only thing that is absolutely settled by this referendum is whether Scotland will become an independent, sovereign state.

And as a personal dissatisfaction: Why does the nation apply the same eligibilty criteria of a political election to the referrendum? As the result of the referrendum determines Scottish people's nationality and governance, it is worrying that Scottish people living elsehere (incl. England) or disenfranchised (e.g. prosoners) are also denied the opportunity to vote on their own nationality or on their nation's governance.

Because there is no end to that argument, as there is no such concept as Scottish citizenship as distinct from British citizenship. Why should a self-described Scot living in England and not planning to move back have a say in the constitutional future of a country they are not resident in? If you allow that, logically that opens the door to preventing 'non-Scots' who are resident from voting for the same ethnic national reasons. A referendum on this basis would be completely against all precedent, not only in the UK but in Europe and in the world, and the results of it could be challenged. The current franchise allows only those with an actual day-to-day interest in the future of the politics of the country to vote, and that's the only way it can be.

 

[St Rollox]

The first postal votes have now been sent out.
YES or No, uk/gb will/is changing forever politically.
I'm more in the devo max camp but since that ain't an option (at the moment) i have to decide.
Would be a hard one to line up with the Vichy Scottish Tories.

 

[Abpj17]

No matter how absurd negotiations get, the UK Parliament cannot ask Network Rail to go and dismantle the Forth Bridge.

While that is true, they could stop painting it...

 

[Oswyntail]

The real problem, for me, is that it is all a leap in the dark. Rather than have a preliminary set of proposals of how the two countries would operate, there has deliberately been nothing. So there is absolutely nothing on which Scottish voters can possibly make an informed decision. This is highly political chicanery from the SNP, because, as we have seen, so long as they say something will be the case, any negative response can be greeted with "See, they're oppressing us". Until there are some negotiated details, it is impossible to say whether or not Scotland would be viable.
This is deliberate, and may be designed to favour the Yes vote. Intelligent Scots may well see there is not enough to base a vote on, and just not be able to bring themselves to vote. Smaller turnout, tending to favour the zealots.
Of course, post-vote, there is no way that the SNP can guarantee the outcome of negotiations on any matter. Negotiations tend to involve give and take, but Scotland, whether becoming independent or not, has little to give, not least because of commitments given as part of the campaign.

 

[radamfi]

Even if Scotland becomes independent, it will still culturally be very similar to the rest of the British Isles, so not much will change. Just look at Ireland, who you would have thought would want to be as different from England as possible given their bloody struggle for independence. They have copied so many things wholesale from Britain. The way they operate their buses is very similar to Britain before 1986. Like Britain but unlike almost everywhere else in the world, you pay more for a single journey that involves a change. They also buy cheap, British made buses.

The Irish National Roads Authority uses the UK Design Manual for Roads and Bridges:

http://nrastandards.nra.ie/road-design-construction-standards/dmrb

Scotland has had transport devolution for about 15 years now, but still has bus deregulation.

 

[kylemore]

Smaller turnout, tending to favour the zealots.
.

Indications are that turnout is going to be enormous by previous UK standards.

The YES vote is highly motivated - they'll crawl over broken glass to get to the polling station - the NO vote is less motivated - this is indicated by the fact that there is virtually no Grassroots NO campaign compared with the huge YES Grassroots campaign.

Whether this translates into a YES vote - who knows - we'll have to wait and see.

 

[Altnabreac]

2. Where will be independant Scotland's ultimate Court of Appeal be located?

This is an interesting one. At present the ultimate Court of Appeal is of course the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom with certain matters also appeallable to the European Court of Human Rights at Strasbourg.

The position set out in the SNP White paper on Independence is that the Court of Session and the High Court of Justiciary (for criminal appeals) will collectively form the Supreme Court of Scotland:
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2013/11/9348/11

However of course this is not set in stone and if a post vote constitutional convention wanted then other options could be investigated.

One option of course is the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council which sits in parallel to the UK Supreme Court with some additional members and forms part of the appeal process for 13 independent countries in varying formats:

• Antigua and Barbuda,
• The Bahamas,
• Grenada,
• Jamaica,
• Saint Kitts and Nevis,
• Saint Lucia,
• Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
• Tuvalu
• Dominica
• Mauritius
• Trinidad and Tobago
• Kiribati
• Brunei

It is also the highest court of appeal for New Zealand's 2 associated states, the 5 Crown Dependencies, 13 British Overseas Territories and the 2 Sovereign Base Areas in Cyprus.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Committee_of_the_Privy_Council

With the creation of the Caribbean Court of Justice the direction of travel has been away from the JCPC hearing appeals from independent countries but it will certainly be dealing with matters for some years to come.

I personally would expect the majority of Scottish legal opinion to be that the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council would not be necessary but its certainly an option to consider.

 

[PaxVobiscum]

The real problem, for me, is that it is all a leap in the dark. Rather than have a preliminary set of proposals of how the two countries would operate, there has deliberately been nothing. So there is absolutely nothing on which Scottish voters can possibly make an informed decision...

In the interests of eliciting information on the consequences of a Yes result,
can I ask the Mods what plans there are for the title of the RailUK forums in the event of a majority for Scottish Independence?

 

[Johnuk123]

A month from the possible end of the UK PLC with a 300 year old union and it comes down to 4 pages on the forum.
What to make of that i don't know.

What's your theory ?

 

[NotATrainspott]

The real problem, for me, is that it is all a leap in the dark. Rather than have a preliminary set of proposals of how the two countries would operate, there has deliberately been nothing. So there is absolutely nothing on which Scottish voters can possibly make an informed decision. This is highly political chicanery from the SNP, because, as we have seen, so long as they say something will be the case, any negative response can be greeted with "See, they're oppressing us". Until there are some negotiated details, it is impossible to say whether or not Scotland would be viable.
This is deliberate, and may be designed to favour the Yes vote. Intelligent Scots may well see there is not enough to base a vote on, and just not be able to bring themselves to vote. Smaller turnout, tending to favour the zealots.
Of course, post-vote, there is no way that the SNP can guarantee the outcome of negotiations on any matter. Negotiations tend to involve give and take, but Scotland, whether becoming independent or not, has little to give, not least because of commitments given as part of the campaign.

However, you do have to realise that there is one side that can create absolute certainty and that is the No side. David Cameron could phone up the EU and get an official, legally-binding opinion on Scotland and the EU that would become part of the independence vote (as in, if the EU say officially that Scotland will have to leave and then re-enter, then a Yes vote would be a vote for that in constitutional terms). However, he has not done this. If he were confident that Scotland wouldn't get in to the EU, why would he not get this legal advice and parade it around as an absolute reason to vote No? This is where it becomes apparent why he has not done such a thing; if he gets official answers, those answers would not help the No side. Instead, keeping everything uncertain gives ammunition to Better Together as they know that people will tend to vote for 'certainty', as a part of the UK, versus uncertainty as an independent state.