Scottish independence. Now the post-mortem

Read the forum code of contact

Member for

17 years 6 months

Posts: 9,739

One thing that occurs to me when listening to all the arguments about Scottish independence is all the talk that there has been about 'assets'; now the oil industry is an asset (well, the revenue is) and an independent Scotland would claim this because of its geographical location but that only applies to 'assets' that have such a convenient demarcation.

What about the DVLA, for example, that is in Cardiff, so does that mean that no part of it belongs to Scotland? Well, hardly, but that isn't really the point; the DVLA, like so much of the infrastructure of the United Kingdom, isn't really an 'asset'. It is a liability, it costs money to run, and it doesn't earn anything like that cost in revenue.

And this is true of so much of what are being (wrongly) referred-to as 'assets'. In fact, taking the United Kingdom as a whole, the whole country is in debt, very serious debt, and likely to remain so for the foreseeable future; the, apparently favourable position of the United Kingdom economy (compared to our European partners / competitors) is based on our lower debt, smaller liabilities and our ability to borrow money at an affordable rate (and pay that money back)! This is the primary 'asset' of the United Kingdom.

One of the threats of the 'YES' campaign has been that unless an independent Scotland gets its fair-share of the 'assets' of the United Kingdom then they will not take their fair-share of the national-debt. If Scotland doesn't take their fair-share of the national-debt then they will undoubtably destroy the one 'asset' that they really need from the United Kingdom!

Member for

17 years 5 months

Posts: 8,980

And car tax and MOT etc will all need to be addressed, health and safety too the list goes on

Member for

19 years 1 month

Posts: 6,043

All these things are easily sorted out by fleeceing the taxpayer !

All pales into insignificance compared to the opening of the 'Pandoras Box' of a divided Scotland - I fear that Salmond's and the SNP's legacy will be a divided and 'troubled' Scotland - and I have chosen that particular word purposely.

Member for

11 years 5 months

Posts: 11,141

And mainly the Scottish taxpayer!!

Yes how true Baz -some of us made similar comments earlier. Whether or not the SNP win their vote, their country will be the loser.

Member for

19 years 1 month

Posts: 6,043

I feel really sad and worried about scotland - I was born and raised in Fife !
The damage is already done and the country will never recover or be the same again.

Member for

11 years 5 months

Posts: 11,141

I am too, Baz, on behalf of the thousands like my friends who think the SNP have lost the plot.

However if that's what the majority want they will have to accept the consequences.

Member for

16 years 4 months

Posts: 594

I can't believe some of what's been written in this thread.

Has anyone on here actually read the anything about the Scottish Governments proposals because it doesn't sound like it?

[URL="http://scotreferendum.com/reports/scotlands-future-your-guide-to-an-ind…]

It clearly points out that if there is a Yes, then a divorce period would begin during which Scotland would have to begin the process of creating Scottish Government departments and Organisations for things that are currently administered UK wide. This would include things like work & Pensions, Defence; organisations such as a Scottish DVLA, Passport services.

I'm not an SNP member by any means and don't agree with everything that the Yes campaign plan to do. I'm simply pointing out what has been proposed that clearly hasn't been heard very clearly outside of Scotland.

Regarding Assets, if it's an agreed figure of 8.4 % of all tax raised in the UK comes from Scotland, then the argument is that 8.4% of any piece or equipment that the UK Government owns in the UK is Scottish.

Discussing this with fiends I've referred to divorce credits, a government purchased box of 100 pens might be worth 0.1 divorce credits, a Trident submarine might be worth 10 billion divorce credits with everything else valued in between. The SNP are clear that it doesn't want Trident so could 4 x 10 billion x 8.4% = Scotlands share of Trident in Divorce credits.

Using the DVLA as an example,, It might cost more than 8.4% of whatever value is put against the DVLA, equipment and it's systems, for the Scottish government to set up an equivalent, so could use some of those credits to either "buy a copy" of the DVLA system to run in Scotland, or fund the setting up of a whole new system.

UK government owned land or Buildings in Scotland will have divorce credits valued against them as well no doubt, so much of those credits will offset against land and buildings in the rUK, that we probably won't hear mention f then in any negotiations.

It's the tiny details of negotiation that will really take time and effort to come up with something that works for everyone...remember there are UK government Departments that have offices in Scotland that carry out UK wide work, that would have to be re-arranged so it's not just Scotland having to set up new agencies, the rUK would have to re-organise it's workload as well.

One thing is for very certain... There is no such thing as the Status Quo regarding the UK.

The fact that a referendum is happening and that it appears to be as close as it is... the UK (if it remains) will never be the same again.

Member for

11 years 5 months

Posts: 11,141

All true but that's not the problem they have. Their share of the national debt will more than wipe out the 8.4%s. And then they have to address the really serious problem of financing their debt.

Member for

19 years 1 month

Posts: 6,043

And as alluded to by various people - perhaps the biggest potential problem area has nothing to do with the 'divorce' - but more to do with surfacing divisions within scotland !
Unfortunately !!

Member for

17 years 5 months

Posts: 8,980

It will never work, I do wonder if giving the vote to 16 and 17 year olds was a way to try to increase the yes vote.. But I agree on letting anyone old enough to pay taxes to have a say throughout the UK.

But I could as any other rUK be seemed to be biased, so let's see what the Germans think, from the independant

BP in an independent Scotland will need to learn the meaning of nationalisation (Getty Images)
Their concern was underlined by a lengthy statement from Deutsche Bank, signed by Deutsche Bank board director David Folkerts-Landau, which said: “A Yes vote would go down in history as a political and economic mistake as large as Winston Churchill’s decision in 1925 to return the pound to the Gold Standard or the failure of the Federal Reserve to provide sufficient liquidity to the US banking system, which we now know brought on the Great Depression in the US.

“These decisions – well-intentioned as they were – contributed to years of depression and suffering and could have been avoided had alternative decisions been taken.”

It also warned starkly against hopes that Scotland would follow independent Norway, Denmark and Sweden because its economy is totally different. Norwegian oil and gas production is not expected to decline like Scotland’s, Denmark has more high-value manufacturing and Norway has its own currency, allowing it to manage its economic cycle easily.

And it cautioned that an independent Scotland would need to hike interest rates in order to prevent global investors moving their money to bigger, less risky countries.

One could also argue why isn't the rest of the UK involved in this vote, after all Scotland is part of the union.

Member for

19 years 1 month

Posts: 6,043

Yes giving the vote to 16yo's was bizarre in the extreme.
The financial problems ahead are only too clear,this is going to cost us all megabucks : (

Member for

16 years 4 months

Posts: 594

This is based on there not being a monetary union.

I suspect that there will be one, but the SNP will have to "buy it" by allowing rUK more than 5 years to move Trident.

There is a certain irony though regarding the MOD.... RN warships have to be built in the UK... shipyards on the Clyde won't be able to bid. But we are quite happy for Scotland to remain the base for our Nuclear weapons, because we know the NIMBY's in Portsmouth are ready to kick off at the suggestion they move to there.

It's not just the SNP that are speaking with forked tongue here.

As for the rest of the UK not being involved in the vote... Surely Scots have a right to self determination. If Scotland voted Yes, but the rest of the UK decided Scotland should stay part of the Union ...then what??
An even bigger political mess moving forward than we could face on Friday.

Member for

11 years 5 months

Posts: 11,141

If there is monetary union, which I strongly doubt, Salmond will have given up everything he has been wittering on about for the last few years. He who controls your money controls your country, as the Eurozone members know only too well. But without a lender of last resort for his new currency his economy will be subject to the vicissitudes of high borrowing rates and lack of investment.

Rock and hard place come mind. It will certainly be a mess on Friday. And Salmond has only himself and his irrational obsession to blame.

Member for

12 years 11 months

Posts: 6,535

Re 33

Portagee

'Self determination' is not at all the question. No one would query the right of Scotland or any other country to decide its own fate/future.

The question that will shortly be answered is: What is the best outcome for Scotland and the rest of Gt. Britain?

The answer given to that question will depend on which appeal to either emotion (Yes) or intellect (No) is successful.

My personal belief is that Scotland has much more to gain from participation inside the Union than out of it.

Member for

16 years 4 months

Posts: 594

The best outcome for Scotland may well be Yes... but Yes may not be the best outcome for rUK. Only a Yes and someone reading History 100 years from now would be in the best position to judge the answer to that.

I object to the idea that Yes is the emotional vote and No is based on intellect.
I'm an educated person who intends to vote Yes. That choice is base on intellect as well as emotion.

I know that Both sides have been blowing smoke regarding costs, Oil & Gas etc. But what I can see and understand is that whilst the current UK government is telling Scotland that the Oil and Gas wont last long and actually won't amount to much financially.
Yet during the concessions now being offered by the No campaign of new Scottish power on tax etc, the UK government isn't letting go of the Oil and Gas Money. Could it be because they know that actually there is more than enough to allow an Independant Scotland what it plans to do ??

Everyone is entitled to their belief, In my view, Scotland can't do any worse than what my (and previous) generations have had to live with under Westminster rule.

If an independent Scotland falls on it's Backside then at least it's at our own hand.

Member for

17 years 10 months

Posts: 194

My heart does rule my head, I am deeply sad that Scotland did not ignore Alex Salmond and the SNP. Surely this is creating a backward step. We should be building a fairer Britain, finding ways to unite not squabling over what ooh our financial houses will desert you etcetc. It all appeares so petty and childish. The Scottish voters should remember that who will be deciding things for them - Politicians and my feelings about polititions is they would sell their mother down the river at the drop of a proverbial hat. I suppose it was ever thus. Sorry not all polititions some are dedicated to their constituants and must get as disolusioned as I am but they carry on because if they didn't then there would be no one to raise those issues that concern the constituants.

Member for

17 years 6 months

Posts: 9,739

Regarding Assets, if it's an agreed figure of 8.4 % of all tax raised in the UK comes from Scotland, then the argument is that 8.4% of any piece or equipment that the UK Government owns in the UK is Scottish.

Discussing this with fiends I've referred to divorce credits, a government purchased box of 100 pens might be worth 0.1 divorce credits, a Trident submarine might be worth 10 billion divorce credits with everything else valued in between. The SNP are clear that it doesn't want Trident so could 4 x 10 billion x 8.4% = Scotlands share of Trident in Divorce credits.

Using the DVLA as an example,, It might cost more than 8.4% of whatever value is put against the DVLA, equipment and it's systems, for the Scottish government to set up an equivalent, so could use some of those credits to either "buy a copy" of the DVLA system to run in Scotland, or fund the setting up of a whole new system.

UK government owned land or Buildings in Scotland will have divorce credits valued against them as well no doubt, so much of those credits will offset against land and buildings in the rUK, that we probably won't hear mention f then in any negotiations.


I'm not sure I follow your analogy of 'divorce credits'?

Just because Scotland 'owns' 8.4% of every 'asset' of the United Kingdom does not somehow magically provide an extra 8.4% equivalent in money to duplicate that part of the asset that does not exist in Scotland. These are only 'assets' in the sense of the essential service they provide, not in the sense that they have any sale value; there is no cash in the system.

Let us take the example of the DVLA. In your analogy Scotland could trade an equivalent value of (I don't know) Forestry Commission land for the 8.4% of the DVLA that Scotland 'owns'; fine, but where does the cash come from to build the Scottish DVLA?

As for Trident, Scotland doesn't want Trident, so I'm not so sure that Scotland should be able to claim any 'credit' for trading it. Trident was a democratic decision of the United Kingdom government; if Scotland wants to cherry-pick what Scotland doesn't want post-independence then that is fine but why should the rest of the United Kingdom pay a credit for it, so to speak? Also Scotland will hardly wish to credit the Rest of the United Kingdom for the Trident facilities that will be abandoned in Scotland.

Can Scotland be successfully divorced from the United Kingdom? Yes, of course, but I don't think the costs to both parties should be underestimated. And these will be real costs, real costs running into billions of pounds, and they will be real costs that will need to be met very quickly (by borrowing money) at a time when government borrowing, especially for a newly-independent Scotland, could be very expensive.

Member for

19 years 5 months

Posts: 9,821

From The Telegraph...

The Queen has broken her silence about the potential break-up of the United Kingdom by warning Scots to think “very carefully about the future” before casting their votes in the independence referendum.
In an extremely rare move, police invited press to observe the exchanges after she and other members of the Royal Family left a service that had included a prayer asking God “to save us from false choices”.

I think she'd be hurt if they take her off their postage stamps:) ...and it sounds like the C of E is also getting involved.
Plus, the paper reports "Yes" supporters are charging the BBC with bias in the issue..

Come on, the BBC would never be biased on political issues. :)

Really, the "no" supporters seem to be their own worse enemy, this lack of subtlety might drive some voters who are currently "on the fence" to vote yes.

Member for

11 years 5 months

Posts: 11,141

CD - Extending that thinking echoes precisely what was agreed when the reserves were discovered in the 70s. That those assets were to be shared equally amongst the members of the UK. Thus Scotland was and is eligible for 8.4% of these assets.

I am pleased that Portagee is basing his decision intellectually although somewhat surprised by the shallowness of his thinking. The forecasts for oil and gas have been made by senior energy analyists not by the UK government. The subjects of currency, debt, tax and borrowing do not appear to be a part of that intellectual thinking, despite their critical importance in coming to a decision.

However his last paragraph is undeniably true.

The story of the Queen's intervention is a total non-story. When asked she said "I hope people will think very carefully about the future." Precisely and clearly they are - whichever camp they are in.

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 16,832


I'm an educated person who intends to vote Yes.

Good man!

These last few days are vital. Let's hope Salmond & Sturgeon don't do anything disastrous and then it could well be in the bag.

The big danger is that the U-Gov poll, which was based on very flimsy sampling, generates a feeling of complacency in the 'Yes' camp leading to supporters not bothering to turn out.

Moggy