Implications of Scottish Independence

[Jekyll's Guest]

The SNP can always have a shortbread sale to raise funds. I love shortbread.

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

100% of GDP?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/b...d-would-make-for-a-messy-divorce-2281295.html

"Which brings us neatly to the second big question, of how much of the UK's national debt Scotland ought to take on. And, within that, how much of the debt related to rescuing the semi-nationalised Scottish-based Royal Bank of Scotland and, arguably the Scottish bit of the Lloyds/TSB/Halifax/Bank of Scotland combine. Either way, the debt-to-GDP ratio of an independent Scotland might prove so large as to sink it financially before it was even born; 100 per cent of GDP is well within the bounds, being about 10 per cent of the UK's projected £1tr debt and Scottish GDP at about £100bn. "

I'd personally bite your hand off to take the RBS if we could work out a way to do it. Especially if we are getting the shares at the price the UK government bought them at.

As for the other question, I have no idea what a fair amount is but I doubt the answer is as simple as doing a split by population count.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

<snip>

Or make them both stronger. Or make no difference.

I admire your optimism. Extra overheads rarely make businesses more profitable or motivate investors.

If the UK is competing with China then it must be hurting the economies of both countries and therefore a good answer would be for David Cameron to surrender soveriegnty of the UK to China so we can be a greater force?

Not doing so is being a tight wad and means the Chinese can f-off and die for all we care?

You're comparing apples with oranges. The economies of the UK and China are very different. A better comparison would be the UK joining the Euro, which I support.

 

[scissorhands]

The SNP can always have a shortbread sale to raise funds. I love shortbread.

Haggis is nice too, so long as you dont dwell too long on the ingredients.

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

I admire your optimism. Extra overheads rarely make businesses more profitable or motivate investors..

Proper management does though. As does stripping out non-core businesses (like whole other countries)

As ridiculous as it sounds to you I think the idea of England being run to the benefit of England and Scotland being run to the benefit of Scotland might actually work to the advantage of both.

You're comparing apples with oranges. The economies of the UK and China are very different. A better comparison would be the UK joining the Euro, which I support.

The economies of Scotland and England are different too. It's just hidden by calling them both the UK.

If that example is too extreme then can you point me in the direction of the Danish movement for union with Germany, the Luxembourg movement for union with France and the Portuguese movement for union with Spain?

Hey, if you think joining the Euro is a good idea that benefits the economy then independence would be just about the only way Scotland could do that. I'm not sure I would say its a great idea myself but it would be an option.

If independence is such a horrible thing for countries then where is the queue of nations waiting to relinquish their independence?

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

If Scotland gets independence, Celtic and Rangers fans will be demanding the country be further divided.

 

[scissorhands]

I'd personally bite your hand off to take the RBS if we could work out a way to do it. Especially if we are getting the shares at the price the UK government bought them at.

As for the other question, I have no idea what a fair amount is but I doubt the answer is as simple as doing a split by population count.

Maybe you should think of a better method of dividing UK national debt.

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

Maybe you should think of a better method of dividing UK national debt.

I think I'll leave it to the lawyers and not journos pulling numbers out of their bums.

The debt was not incurred and spent on a per capita basis, the assets won't be divided up on a per capita basis, why would the debt be split that way?

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

<snip>

If independence is such a horrible thing for countries then where is the queue of nations waiting to relinquish their independence?

Those that joined the Euro gave up some independence. Europe is becoming more federal as the decades go by.

The United States of America has been somewhat successful.

 

[scissorhands]

I think I'll leave it to the lawyers and not journos pulling numbers out of their bums.

The debt was not incurred and spent on a per capita basis, the assets won't be divided up on a per capita basis, why would the debt be split that way?

You are saying that less has been spent per head on Scotlands population than elsewhere?

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

You are saying that less has been spent per head on Scotlands population than elsewhere?

I'm saying the money wasn't spent on a per capita basis nor will the assets be divvied up on that basis. To talk about a debt figure independently of the overall separation agreement is a nonsense as it would absolutely be all tied together.

I sincerely doubt that Scotland will get their per capita percentage of Wembley, Buckingham Palace, the Bank of England, or any other long long list of things we could name.

Trying to extract the 'fair' numbers will be a nightmare, a mess, and no doubt the result of negotiation and horse-trading. I have absolutely no doubt if it happens that the Scottish representatives will start with unfair demands as will the UK reps and that when its all said and done the remaining UK will get the sweeter end of the deal.

I think the debt and assets associated with the bank bailout is a special case (probably one of several) and will need to be addressed separately.

Needless to say if the agreement is one that would mean that Scotland is stillborn then it won't happen.

 

[scissorhands]

Those that joined the Euro gave up some independence. Europe is becoming more federal as the decades go by.

The United States of America has been somewhat successful.

Some other union that may be happening one day.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/nz-australia-should-consider-merger/2006/12/04/1165080875361.html

 

[scissorhands]

I'm saying the money wasn't spent on a per capita basis nor will the assets be divvied up on that basis. To talk about a debt figure independently of the overall separation agreement is a nonsense as it would absolutely be all tied together.

I sincerely doubt that Scotland will get their per capita percentage of Wembley, Buckingham Palace, the Bank of England, or any other long long list of things we could name.

Trying to extract the 'fair' numbers will be a nightmare, a mess, and no doubt the result of negotiation and horse-trading. I have absolutely no doubt if it happens that the Scottish representatives will start with unfair demands as will the UK reps and that when its all said and done the remaining UK will get the sweeter end of the deal.

I think the debt and assets associated with the bank bailout is a special case (probably one of several) and will need to be addressed separately.

Needless to say if the agreement is one that would mean that Scotland is stillborn then it won't happen.

According to the Barnett formula, Scots receive £1,600 more per head of public spending than the UK average.
Is this correct?

 

[funk de fino]

Personally I think calls for independence are based more on addressing irrational feelings of inferiority coupled with a dollop of racism rather than rational economic sense.

You would be wronger than wrong. British bulldogs baring their teeth again.

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

According to the Barnett formula, Scots receive £1,600 more per head of public spending than the UK average.
Is this correct?

Not really. The Barnett formula applies only to certain areas of public spending and not to others. For example, AFAIK defence which is a bloody big ticket item is excluded.

So....it's not really that simple is the answer. Which is why the lawyers will have a field day trying to work it all out if it ever happens.

I would imagine the Scottish negotiating position would be that as nobody representing the State of Scotland ever signed up to any of these loans they can't be held on the hook for their settlement and that any share of the debt we choose to take on will be done in exchange for a favourable settlement in other areas.

Since the legal entity of the UK is not being dissolved I would think it would be hard to argue that the remaining members of the Union aren't on the hook for the debts but I'm no lawyer.

I'm not sure exactly what the exit clauses on the Act of Union were but this will be more good evidence that you should always put termination clauses into partnership arrangements spelling out exactly how a break up would work.

 

[funk de fino]

According to the Barnett formula, Scots receive £1,600 more per head of public spending than the UK average.
Is this correct?

The last paper study I saw put it at £1,161 in 2008.

 

[scissorhands]

Not really. The Barnett formula applies only to certain areas of public spending and not to others. For example, AFAIK defence which is a bloody big ticket item is excluded.

So....it's not really that simple is the answer. Which is why the lawyers will have a field day trying to work it all out if it ever happens.

I would imagine the Scottish negotiating position would be that as nobody representing the State of Scotland ever signed up to any of these loans they can't be held on the hook for their settlement and that any share of the debt we choose to take on will be done in exchange for a favourable settlement in other areas.

Since the legal entity of the UK is not being dissolved I would think it would be hard to argue that the remaining members of the Union aren't on the hook for the debts but I'm no lawyer.

I'm not sure exactly what the exit clauses on the Act of Union were but this will be more good evidence that you should always put termination clauses into partnership arrangements spelling out exactly how a break up would work.

So you are basically hoping that Scotland will be free to disown any debts it may be liable for, after years of being subsidised by UK taxpayers?

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

You would be wronger than wrong. British bulldogs baring their teeth again.

You may be right...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...brate-lets-put-Scotland-into-liquidation.html

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

So you are basically hoping that Scotland will be free to disown any debts it may be liable for, after years of being subsidised by UK taxpayers?

Where did I say that?

Figures quoted elsewhere on this thread suggested that Scotland was running at a 2% deficit when the UK was running at 10%. That to me doesn't sound like it was Scotland that was running up the deficit and being subsidised.

I've seen other figures suggest that Scotland was running at a surplus with respect to the UK. I've seen other figures that suggest Scotland was milking the UK for all its worth. The numbers always seem to prove whatever people want them to.

I said in my original response to you we should take on our 'fair' share. Define fair. I wouldn't even know where to start with what Scotland's fair share of things like the war in Iraq/Afghanistan, the 2012 Olympics, the bank bailout etc etc should be.

 

[funk de fino]

You may be right...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...brate-lets-put-Scotland-into-liquidation.html

Yes, written in 2005. Very relevant. Do I really have to quote something from Kelvin McKenzie or have you finished with the childish insults and baiting?