Scotland to become independent in March 2016 if referendum passes

[jpinx]

Where's theblether when Scottish independence is under discussion ? Last time it came up it didn't end happily

Edited November 26, 2013 by jpinx

[RabC]

Suradit69, by 'killing our bank' does your friend mean the £20 billion the UK government paid to bail out the Royal Bank of Scotland in 2008? Money which mainly came from English taxpayers.

By 'threatened our oil refinery' does he mean the dispute between the Swiss owners, Ineos, and the union, Unite, which nearly closed Grangemouth. A dispute settled after the British government promised £125 million in loan guarantees? (Yes, I am aware that the Scottish government promised £9 million, too. Where's that money coming from, I wonder? The grants they receive from English tax payers?)

Maybe you could also ask your friend to comment on this:

BAE closure of Portsmouth shipyard prompts political row

The coalition has been accused of sacrificing Portsmouth's 500-year-old shipbuilding tradition to save the industry in Glasgow before Scotland's independence referendum, as it unveiled plans for almost 1,800 job losses in the two cities.

Philip Hammond, the Conservative defence secretary, said it was "regrettable but inevitable" that BAE Systems' Portsmouth site would have to close, as there would no longer be enough orders to sustain two major military shipyards in the UK.

The closure in Portsmouth removes the immediate threat of closure from Glasgow's Scotstoun and Govan yards, although 835 jobs will be lost at those sites as well as at two other locations, in Fife and Bristol. These will be kept open to build three patrol boats while they wait to begin construction on millions of pounds' worth of type 26 warships in 2015.

However, ministers faced claims that they were playing politics with UK jobs as Alistair Carmichael, the Scottish secretary, said it would be difficult to award the type 26 work to Scotland if the country voted to leave the UK in 2014.

Here we go then, the facts as they stand on Scotlands ability to handle independence.

Source

http://www.yesscotland.net/answers/does-scotland-have-what-it-takes-be-independent

Question:

Does Scotland have what it takes be independent?

Answer:

The question is not whether Scotland can afford to be independent. We have the people, resources and ingenuity to prosper. Instead we should be asking, why isnt Scotland doing better, given all the natural and human wealth we enjoy?

Being an independent country is all about making Scotland a better place to live, with greater prosperity and higher standards of living. That is the purpose and the reason why so many Scots are passionate about an independent Scotland.

People ask, can we afford to be independent? Many have heard the claim that spending in Scotland is much higher than elsewhere in the UK. What is less well known is that tax revenues generated by Scotland are much higher too.

The 2011-2012 Government Expenditure and Revenue figures show that Scotland got 9.3% of UK spending, but generated 9.9% of UK taxes (due in part to high oil revenues in that year). When we take into account all parts of the financial equation, spending, revenue and borrowing, this means we contributed £4.4 billion more than 'our share'. This pattern has been repeated over the last 6 years: Scotlands finances have been stronger than the UK. And looking over a period of 30 years, we have had a relative surplus of £19 billion.

The UK government has published figures on Scotland's finances since devolution began in 1999. They showed that Scotland's accounts matched the UK's to within £1 per person for each year. If the UK government were to rerun the same calculations in light of the 2011-12 figures, they would now show that Scotland's public finances have been stronger than the UK's looking at the whole period since devolution.

Taken together, these figures for the most recent years, the devolution years and over a 30 period tell us that Scotland has sufficiently strong financial foundations. These figures are not about forecasting the future, because one of the reasons for becoming independent is to grow our economy faster and improve our financial position. However they do confirm that Scotland is wealthy enough to be an independent nation, if we so choose.

Some people worry that an independent Scotland wouldnt be able to deal with the high level of debt, but figures released in January 2012 by City firm M&G Investments showed that, at the time, Scotlands debt as a percentage of national wealth was smaller than the UKs. For Scotland it was 56%, for the UK 63% - as the report said, Scotlands starting point looks better than the UK as a whole.

The Scottish Government's Fiscal Commission working group, which includes two Nobel Laureates, has provided updated estimates in February 2013. These look forward to a point after Scotland would be independent. They say that if Scotland assumed a population share of UK public sector net debt, in 2017-18 our debt would be equivalent to 72% of Scotland's national wealth. This would be lower than the equivalent UK figure of 77%.

Thanks to North Sea oil and gas, an asset worth well over £1 trillion, we have one of the best safety nets for the future. The wholesale value of this asset is as much as ten times our share of the national debt.

But oil and gas arent our only guarantees for the future. Scotland has 25% of the EUs offshore tidal and wind energy potential, which will be worth billions every year. For our size, we have the strongest university research base in the world. We have key and growing industries including tourism, food & drink (including whisky), the financial sector, engineering and life sciences. These are firm foundations for success.

And all those growing industries and research organisations funded from outside Scotalnd will of course remain after indipendance, just like BAE/MOD would continue to build ships in a foreign land. Wake up and smell the coffee, the figures you quote are only that good because you are part of the UK and also the EU. Scotland will loose both of those memberships and the associated trade perks.

I say go ahead and do it, would love to see who would bail you out?

If Scotland does vote yes England should immediately slap a 200% export tax on Bucky that would quadruple Scotland's welfare expenditure just in keeping Ned's happy.

Edited November 26, 2013 by RabC

[simple1]

Suradit69, by 'killing our bank' does your friend mean the £20 billion the UK government paid to bail out the Royal Bank of Scotland in 2008? Money which mainly came from English taxpayers.

By 'threatened our oil refinery' does he mean the dispute between the Swiss owners, Ineos, and the union, Unite, which nearly closed Grangemouth. A dispute settled after the British government promised £125 million in loan guarantees? (Yes, I am aware that the Scottish government promised £9 million, too. Where's that money coming from, I wonder? The grants they receive from English tax payers?)

Maybe you could also ask your friend to comment on this:

BAE closure of Portsmouth shipyard prompts political row

The coalition has been accused of sacrificing Portsmouth's 500-year-old shipbuilding tradition to save the industry in Glasgow before Scotland's independence referendum, as it unveiled plans for almost 1,800 job losses in the two cities.

Philip Hammond, the Conservative defence secretary, said it was "regrettable but inevitable" that BAE Systems' Portsmouth site would have to close, as there would no longer be enough orders to sustain two major military shipyards in the UK.

The closure in Portsmouth removes the immediate threat of closure from Glasgow's Scotstoun and Govan yards, although 835 jobs will be lost at those sites as well as at two other locations, in Fife and Bristol. These will be kept open to build three patrol boats while they wait to begin construction on millions of pounds' worth of type 26 warships in 2015.

However, ministers faced claims that they were playing politics with UK jobs as Alistair Carmichael, the Scottish secretary, said it would be difficult to award the type 26 work to Scotland if the country voted to leave the UK in 2014.

Here we go then, the facts as they stand on Scotlands ability to handle independence.

Source

http://www.yesscotland.net/answers/does-scotland-have-what-it-takes-be-independent

Question:

Does Scotland have what it takes be independent?

Answer:

The question is not whether Scotland can afford to be independent. We have the people, resources and ingenuity to prosper. Instead we should be asking, why isnt Scotland doing better, given all the natural and human wealth we enjoy?

Being an independent country is all about making Scotland a better place to live, with greater prosperity and higher standards of living. That is the purpose and the reason why so many Scots are passionate about an independent Scotland.

People ask, can we afford to be independent? Many have heard the claim that spending in Scotland is much higher than elsewhere in the UK. What is less well known is that tax revenues generated by Scotland are much higher too.

The 2011-2012 Government Expenditure and Revenue figures show that Scotland got 9.3% of UK spending, but generated 9.9% of UK taxes (due in part to high oil revenues in that year). When we take into account all parts of the financial equation, spending, revenue and borrowing, this means we contributed £4.4 billion more than 'our share'. This pattern has been repeated over the last 6 years: Scotlands finances have been stronger than the UK. And looking over a period of 30 years, we have had a relative surplus of £19 billion.

The UK government has published figures on Scotland's finances since devolution began in 1999. They showed that Scotland's accounts matched the UK's to within £1 per person for each year. If the UK government were to rerun the same calculations in light of the 2011-12 figures, they would now show that Scotland's public finances have been stronger than the UK's looking at the whole period since devolution.

Taken together, these figures for the most recent years, the devolution years and over a 30 period tell us that Scotland has sufficiently strong financial foundations. These figures are not about forecasting the future, because one of the reasons for becoming independent is to grow our economy faster and improve our financial position. However they do confirm that Scotland is wealthy enough to be an independent nation, if we so choose.

Some people worry that an independent Scotland wouldnt be able to deal with the high level of debt, but figures released in January 2012 by City firm M&G Investments showed that, at the time, Scotlands debt as a percentage of national wealth was smaller than the UKs. For Scotland it was 56%, for the UK 63% - as the report said, Scotlands starting point looks better than the UK as a whole.

The Scottish Government's Fiscal Commission working group, which includes two Nobel Laureates, has provided updated estimates in February 2013. These look forward to a point after Scotland would be independent. They say that if Scotland assumed a population share of UK public sector net debt, in 2017-18 our debt would be equivalent to 72% of Scotland's national wealth. This would be lower than the equivalent UK figure of 77%.

Thanks to North Sea oil and gas, an asset worth well over £1 trillion, we have one of the best safety nets for the future. The wholesale value of this asset is as much as ten times our share of the national debt.

But oil and gas arent our only guarantees for the future. Scotland has 25% of the EUs offshore tidal and wind energy potential, which will be worth billions every year. For our size, we have the strongest university research base in the world. We have key and growing industries including tourism, food & drink (including whisky), the financial sector, engineering and life sciences. These are firm foundations for success.

And all those growing industries and research organisations funded from outside Scotalnd will of course remain after indipendance, just like BAE/MOD would continue to build ships in a foreign land. Wake up and smell the coffee, the figures you quote are only that good because you are part of the UK and also the EU. Scotland will loose both of those memberships and the associated trade perks.

I say go ahead and do it, would love to see who would bail you out?

If Scotland does vote yes England should immediately slap a 200% export tax on Bucky that would quadruple Scotland's welfare expenditure just in keeping Ned's happy.

Plus:

With a geographical allocation of revenues from North Sea oil, the IFS says Scotland’s public sector net borrowing was 7 per cent of national income in 2012-13 against 7.4 per cent in the UK as a whole. By 2017-18, however, UK net borrowing would be down to 2.2 per cent, against 4.3 per cent for Scotland. By 2021-22, the UK’s net borrowing would be 0.9 per cent of national income, against 3.6 per cent for Scotland.

The explanation for this divergence is that the revenue from the North Sea is forecast by the UK’s Office for Budgetary Responsibility to halve, as a share of national income, between 2012-13 and 2017-18. But oil revenues would have accounted for 12 per cent of an independent Scotland’s fiscal receipts in 2012-13.

The bad initial borrowing position is one reason the longer-term fiscal picture comes out much worse for Scotland than for the UK as a whole. The other is weaker demographics, particularly more rapid ageing. The former assumption would be wrong if North Sea revenue turned out better than expected. The second assumption would be wrong if Scotland attracted more immigrants.

[Crushdepth]

Independence just means you get the privilege of paying for an extra bunch of politicians, which are usually less competent that the ones you had previously.

But don't listen to me, try it out for yourselves

[smokie36]

If Scotland becomes independent, what happens to Balmoral?

Donald Trump will build a golf course there with Billy Connolly doing a season of entertainment once in a while. Maybe a few casinos as well....you get the idea....

[nontabury]

Scotland has been a financial drain on England for ever, I hope they vote yes to independence, the free loading whiners will regret it if they do. They could always have Gordon Brown as a leader!

Let's not forget that other Scotsman Tony Blair, these two characters have nearly destroyed England.

[nontabury]

As an Englishman I do so hope that the Scots do vote for separation, I' m just wondering what would then happen to all the European immigrants that Blair and Brown encouraged to settle in England, in the event that the rest of the UK votes to leave the EC. They know the British way of life, know how to work the system, probably speak English , which country do you think they would most likely move to.

[MJP]

All the "jocks" I know, and I know quite a few, are disturbingly intelligent and hard working folks. Really are top drawer.

I honestly think Scotland would make a good go of it.

[jpinx]

Scotland has been a financial drain on England for ever, I hope they vote yes to independence, the free loading whiners will regret it if they do. They could always have Gordon Brown as a leader!

Let's not forget that other Scotsman Tony Blair, these two characters have nearly destroyed England.

was that not the plan all along

[StreetCowboy]

 

Independence just means you get the privilege of paying for an extra bunch of politicians, which are usually less competent that the ones you had previously.

But don't listen to me, try it out for yourselves

 

We compromised with the Scottish Parliament, to get the worst of both worlds.

SC

[gaucho]

Finally William Wallace's dream might come true! FREEEEEEEEEEEDOOOOOOOOOOM. ;-)

yeah and two years down the track they will want it all to go o away and yearn for the old days ...a few disaffected trying to foist their opinions on others ...

[gmac]

Can we English people have a referendum to find out if we want Scotland in the United Kingdom?

I for one would welcome an English referendum on whether or not Scotland should remain in the UK.

If some of the feelings expressed by English posters here are anything to go by, we would have a much greater chance of independence.

The waters are so muddied by misinformation, a dearth of facts that are acceptable to all and interpreted in the same way, strongly held, loudly voiced and often misguided opinions (often based on completely spurious 'facts') - all from both sides of the debate - it is small wonder that there is such a significant and critical number of undecided.

IMHO, so many of that critical number, confused about the arguments for or against, or simply ignorant of them, will , if they vote at all, will vote to 'stay safe' ie. stick to the status quo. Uncertainty is such a caster of doubts.

For myself, to put my head on the block, I would vote for Independence IF I had the opportunity to vote, which I have only now had confirmed by my Local Authority in Scotland, I do not.

I also think that Salmond has made a mistake to insist that an independent Scottish currency should be tied to sterling. I would favour the good old 'Scottish Pound' - something that has existed for a very long time, although NOT tied to sterling.

As for membership of the EU, if not automatic it would still be a probability even if it took an application process to do it.

But, alas, I believe it is all pure conjecture and wishful thinking because I just don't think the Scottish voters will go for independence. They are either too scared or just plain apathetic. I despair!

Maybe England should go for independence from the UK thus escaping from the EU by the back door letting Scotland et al keep the membership they crave and keep the 'English Pound' safe from the Euro!

[7by7]

Thanks (phuketjock) for identifying the source of the quote. In the interests of fair and balanced discussion, I think it would have been useful to have the opposition view as well, rather than just repeating the propaganda from the "Yes" campaign web site.

SC

Be useful then. Give us a quote of similar length from the "NO Campaign" propaganda. In the interests of fair and balanced discussion of course (LOL).

awayego, if you read all posts before commenting; as anyone who is really interested in this would surely do, you would know that I provided links to the No campaign in response to phuketjock's original post!

To save you the effort of looking for them, here they are again:

Better together

No Scotland.

What I didn't do is waste forum space by quoting at length from them as I thought forum members were capable of clicking on the links and reading them for themselves.

[7by7]

If Scotland becomes independent, what happens to Balmoral?

Well, some suggestions:

1. Turn it into a national park and Centre for the Environment.

2. It could become Scotland's version of Chequers. On second thoughts the cost would be unjustifiable.

3. Make it totally secure and keep the entire Royal family and all their hangers on under permanent house arrest, provided of course that it was all funded by Westminster.

Any other suggestions?

It needs to be a cash cow, so high end holiday destination. It would be a big earner.

American, Japanese and Chinese tourists would pay a small fortune for the opportunity to sit on the Queen's Gary Glitter.

Balmoral is the private property of the Queen and not part of the Crown Estate.

The Queen is also half Scottish through her mother.

Does Salmond intend confiscating all land owned by non pure blood Scots after independence?

[StreetCowboy]

 

...

Balmoral is the private property of the Queen and not part of the Crown Estate.

The Queen is also half Scottish through her mother.

Does Salmond intend confiscating all land owned by non pure blood Scots after independence?

 

I don't think he has mentioned that yet.

Maybe he's working on the definition of 'pure blood'; I hope he's consulting John Leslie, Dan Parks and Tim Visser on the topic.

EDIT: And Man of Steel Danny Brough

Edited November 26, 2013 by StreetCowboy

[Ace of Pop]

The paper won't sway my decision, independence is what's needed and now is the time to do it.

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

No Wonder your Skint. .

[phitsanulokjohn]

About as likely as Australia becoming a republic.

[awayego]

Thanks (phuketjock) for identifying the source of the quote. In the interests of fair and balanced discussion, I think it would have been useful to have the opposition view as well, rather than just repeating the propaganda from the "Yes" campaign web site.

SC

Be useful then. Give us a quote of similar length from the "NO Campaign" propaganda. In the interests of fair and balanced discussion of course (LOL).

awayego, if you read all posts before commenting; as anyone who is really interested in this would surely do, you would know that I provided links to the No campaign in response to phuketjock's original post!

To save you the effort of looking for them, here they are again:

Better together

No Scotland.

What I didn't do is waste forum space by quoting at length from them as I thought forum members were capable of clicking on the links and reading them for themselves.

Well why the hell didn't you say so in your comment to 'phuketjock' then instead of apparently criticising him for not doing so?

Why infer that a 'Yes' proponent should also propogandise for the opposite side "in the interests of fair and balanced discussion"? Surely it's the job of the 'NO' supporters to put the other side's case.

It's all just propoganda anyway and needs to be taken with a healthy pinch of salt.

I am old enough and wise enough not to take anything at face value, least of all from politicians, journalists or TV posters. That said, on balance I prefer to take a more positive viewpoint on independence after a great deal of reading, sifting and careful consideration. The quote from the 'Yes' campaign propoganda is closer to my own thoughts than is the propoganda of the 'NO' campaign, and is greatly re-inforced by much of the drivel contained in the more ill-considered and stereotypical responses by some English posters here.

[awayego]

If Scotland becomes independent, what happens to Balmoral?

Well, some suggestions:

1. Turn it into a national park and Centre for the Environment.

2. It could become Scotland's version of Chequers. On second thoughts the cost would be unjustifiable.

3. Make it totally secure and keep the entire Royal family and all their hangers on under permanent house arrest, provided of course that it was all funded by Westminster.

Any other suggestions?

It needs to be a cash cow, so high end holiday destination. It would be a big earner.

Oh yes, I like it! Plenty of top-class Scottish huntin', shootin' and fishin' I believe. Perhaps the Royal family might even be 'game' for it!

[7by7]

awayego, if you read all posts before commenting; as anyone who is really interested in this would surely do, you would know that I provided links to the No campaign in response to phuketjock's original post!

To save you the effort of looking for them, here they are again:

Better together

No Scotland.

What I didn't do is waste forum space by quoting at length from them as I thought forum members were capable of clicking on the links and reading them for themselves.

Well why the hell didn't you say so in your comment to 'phuketjock' then instead of apparently criticising him for not doing so?

Why infer that a 'Yes' proponent should also propogandise for the opposite side "in the interests of fair and balanced discussion"? Surely it's the job of the 'NO' supporters to put the other side's case.

I did not criticise him for not putting the No side nor did I infer that he should put the case for the No side.

Here we go then, the facts as they stand on Scotlands ability to handle independence.

Source

http://www.yesscotland.net/answers/does-scotland-have-what-it-takes-be-independent

Given that your source is the Yes campaign, one has to ask whether your lengthy post consists of facts or propaganda! Despite quoting my previous post in full, interestingly your lengthy post didn't deal with a single point I raised.

For the alternative viewpoint, including counter arguments to the Yes campaign's 'facts' see Better together and No Scotland.

You really should read posts before commenting on them; you'll look less foolish that way.

[StreetCowboy]

 

Thanks (phuketjock) for identifying the source of the quote. In the interests of fair and balanced discussion, I think it would have been useful to have the opposition view as well, rather than just repeating the propaganda from the "Yes" campaign web site.

SC

Be useful then. Give us a quote of similar length from the "NO Campaign" propaganda. In the interests of fair and balanced discussion of course (LOL).

awayego, if you read all posts before commenting; as anyone who is really interested in this would surely do, you would know that I provided links to the No campaign in response to phuketjock's original post!

To save you the effort of looking for them, here they are again:

Better together

No Scotland.

What I didn't do is waste forum space by quoting at length from them as I thought forum members were capable of clicking on the links and reading them for themselves.

Well why the hell didn't you say so in your comment to 'phuketjock' then instead of apparently criticising him for not doing so?

Why infer that a 'Yes' proponent should also propogandise for the opposite side "in the interests of fair and balanced discussion"? Surely it's the job of the 'NO' supporters to put the other side's case.

It's all just propoganda anyway and needs to be taken with a healthy pinch of salt.

I am old enough and wise enough not to take anything at face value, least of all from politicians, journalists or TV posters. That said, on balance I prefer to take a more positive viewpoint on independence after a great deal of reading, sifting and careful consideration. The quote from the 'Yes' campaign propoganda is closer to my own thoughts than is the propoganda of the 'NO' campaign, and is greatly re-inforced by much of the drivel contained in the more ill-considered and stereotypical responses by some English posters here.

 

That was me that posted the critical comment.

[awayego]

You really should read posts before commenting on them; you'll look less foolish that way.

My sincere apologies! I see now my remarks should have been addressed to 'streetcowboy'.

I did actually read all posts but, in my haste, made a wrong ID.

I feel suitably foolish now!

[7by7]

No land in Scotland is owned by anyone that includes the royals.

Tell that to Donald Trump!

Do the SNP intend do take all privately owned land in Scotland into state ownership on independence?

If so, do the ordinary people of Scotland who own their own homes know this?

[Chicog]

Does Salmond intend confiscating all land owned by non pure blood Scots after independence?

I think you should refer to them as "Muggles" or "Half Bloods".

[7by7]

Skint seems to have had problems with the quote function, Chicog. It was actually me who asked that question.

I asked it because Balmoral is not owned by the Crown Estates but is the private property of the Queen, whose mother was Scottish.

So questions and speculation about the ownership and fate of Balmoral post independence are irrelevant unless the answer to my question is "Yes."

Especially as Salmond has said that an independent Scotland will retain the Queen as head of state.

Assuming she wants the role; which I think we can all accept as a given.

Edited November 26, 2013 by 7by7

[Chicog]

I find that Alex Salmond to be an objectionable Jabba the Hut lookalike. Having him there is quite a good deterrent to a vote for independence. They should have got Sean Connery.

[nontabury]

Skint seems to have had problems with the quote function, Chicog. It was actually me who asked that question.

I asked it because Balmoral is not owned by the Crown Estates but is the private property of the Queen, whose mother was Scottish.

So questions and speculation about the ownership and fate of Balmoral post independence are irrelevant unless the answer to my question is "Yes."

Especially as Salmond has said that an independent Scotland will retain the Queen as head of state.

Assuming she wants the role; which I think we can all accept as a given.

Maybe the rest of the UK will not like that, I personally prefer that the separation will be 100%

and according to opinion polls, the English are naturally more enthusiastic for the YES vote.

[Scott]

Off-topic post deleted and a post with messed up quotes.

[nontabury]

Where's theblether when Scottish independence is under discussion ? Last time it came up it didn't end happily

I'm sure he'll be along shortly.

[7by7]

Not read the full 670 page (!) document in full, but from the BBC: Scottish independence: White Paper at-a-glance

More of an SNP election manifesto than an objective explanation of the case for independence.

Also, as predicted, contains many assumptions that Salmond will get his way in important, nay vital, negotiations; such as Scotland keeping Sterling.