Independence SE Poll

[Mikie711]

Well negotiations for FREEEDDDOOOMMMMMM start in 5 weeks time if the YES team win


Where are the right people?

Are you hiding them under your bed?

As they certainly ain't in the SNP and highly doubtful they are in the scottish parliament thought the kick boxing lesbian does seem to rise above the rest of them

I think you've been watching too many movies.

Where are the right people? Who knows but they're certainly not under my bed - your replies are becoming more absurd.

I'm trying to put up as reasonable a discussion as I can, this doesn't help.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Okay i will be reasonable

Where are the right people for negotiating our separation from the UK

Do you think Alex Salmond will get us a excellent deal?

come on

Yes or NO

And if NO then who is going to be negotiating on our behalf

You want me to vote YES

You give me some answers as the clock is ticking

I don't see the talent or skill in the Scottish government to get us anything other then a fantastically sh*t deal

Actually out of them all I would want Salmond at the table as he is less likely to trade off anything without taking something away from the table. But that is a whole other argument in itself.
In the event of a no vote I have no idea who will fight our corner, especially with the current Government having little representation in Scotland. In reality we will have no say in what happens post no. We will just have to swallow what we are given or not as the case may be.

The whole independence debate has been poorly handled from both sides. The yes campaign have attempted to present it as a utopian dream without any potential issues, and the no campaign are so intent on telling us that we are capable of nothing without the protection of mother UK. It's ridiculous and farcical that any of these people are in high public office. Last night was like watching an argument in the pub the only difference being it didn't end up outside with the two of them knocking seven bails of sh!t out of each other, which likely would have been as productive and considerably more entertaining.

[thinfourth]

What does Salmond have to trade?

He has already stated we are keeping all the oil and spending it 5 times

And the debt default the treasury have turned round to the markets and promised they will pick up the tab

[Rosssco]

Actually out of them all I would want Salmond at the table as he is less likely to trade off anything without taking something away from the table. But that is a whole other argument in itself.
In the event of a no vote I have no idea who will fight our corner, especially with the current Government having little representation in Scotland. In reality we will have no say in what happens post no. We will just have to swallow what we are given or not as the case may be.

The whole independence debate has been poorly handled from both sides. The yes campaign have attempted to present it as a utopian dream without any potential issues, and the no campaign are so intent on telling us that we are capable of nothing without the protection of mother UK. It's ridiculous and farcical that any of these people are in high public office. Last night was like watching an argument in the pub the only difference being it didn't end up outside with the two of them knocking seven bails of sh!t out of each other, which likely would have been as productive and considerably more entertaining.

In the event of a no vote, the elected Scottish gov will continue to fight our corner, as will our MP's in the UK gov, as that's what they are supposed to do. The political momentum and level of engagement built up (one positive I see from this whole process) will not subside easily, and I'm pretty sure something will be gained further than 2012 act powers. But yes, to an extent, we will not be calling the shots. We will not have a particularly good hand, and to an extent I believe we would come out with a politically convenient set of compromises (that will be made out to be a sucess by a triumphalist SNP negotiatiing tema), but that will ultimately mean we are rUK's b"tch..

I dunno. I mean Salmond is certainly one of the best politicians, and no doubt he would be at any negotiations as the FM, but at the same time, Salmond has ultimately become the figurehead for a fairly divisive campaign. A campaign that would likely damage some UK gov MP's / parties, leading them to want to extract some form of political retribution, not on Scotland, but on the SNP gov that have caused the break-up. Those south of the border do not seem to appreciate Salmond one bit, hence a "friendlier face" may make sentiment less strong, hence less political pressure on UK politicians.

From that perspective, perhaps a fresh approach not containing a majority of those involved on the yes side would offer up a team more condusive to agreement and compromise (of which there is going to be a vast amount of). I don't see why in the event of indy that we don't trigger a snap election. That would be the most democratic route and would mean the negotiations were genuinely done in a manner fair for Scotland, not just to the political advantage of the SNP, for which they will try and claim to ensure further election success.

[graeme]

Slight topic change, but I've been looking at the oil-fund in a bit more detail, as it's something I really would like to see happen.

It doesn't add up.

Norway's fund is currently sitting at $500bn+ and it is culturally embedded in the whole of society and across all political parties that it will be increased and invested as hard as possible and will not, under any circumstances be spent or depleted. They are not allowed to spend more than 4% of the income from the fund, and most years it's less. It's money for the future at the expense of a better life right now.

Salmond's plan? 10% of oil revenues per year into a Scottish oil fund for the future. Salmond says that's £1bn per year. But he also says oil-revenues will be between £3.2bn and £8bn depending how optimistic you are. Which doesn't add up. 10% of £3.2bn is £320m per year, which will take hundreds of years of oil production at current rates (plus reinvesting continuously and compound interest) to grow to the size that Norway's pot is now, which the Norwegians don't consider to be big enough to sustain them yet if the oil runs out and they are still growing it and will probably continue to do so until the oil does run out.

So, sadly, the oil fund is not going to do diddly-squat to improve our lives. I admire the Noggies for what they've done, but we can't copy it. Ours will be a tiny little piggy-bank in comparison, and there will be a constant nagging from the electorate to spend it on welfare/schools/roads/free fags and Buckfast for everyone! "Why do I have to suffer xyz when the government is rich? That's OUR money! We want it now!" We haven't got the culture to back up the oil fund, no matter how big we can grow it, which we can't.

Sadly, that fund is one of the few things which might have swayed me over to a Yes vote if I thought it really could happen, but it doesn't add up. I'd love to be convinced on that one.

[Rosssco]

Your primary point is right - its a cultural thing. That's why all the comments on "we can be like Norway" are quite misguided - we're nothing like NORWEGIANS in many respects. We can attempt to replicate the political and welfare system as much as possible, but we cannot replicate the culture that sustains it all. In the recent past we have came from a economic and social background determined by the decline and transition away from old heavy industries. Norway didn't have to cope with such a transition, so we are very different in that respect.

We have a buy now / pay later culture in many parts of society which to me makes any major savings pot unrealistic, especially as we are in a huge amount of debt. Why not just put it towards the debt.? Its not as politically sexy that's why...

[Mikie711]

The Norway debate was more of a what we could have had than lets follow what they have done argument. Graeme is right there isn't enough time now to reproduce the fund in the size and numbers talked about. That said, there would still be benefit to having one, over time it would still amount to a substantial amount of money, even at £320,000,000 a year, assuming the lower estimate over 30 years its still £9bn. The oil debate is interesting in that everyone attaches so much importance to the life span of the industry. If the revenue is around long enough to ease the transition to independence and help fund the economy for the first 20years, while the country diversifies to account for the reduction in revenue, then well and good. It's going to run out weather you vote yes or no anyway, so these are things that will have to be done in the medium term anyway, either by an independent Scottish government or devolved government. Surely it would be better to have a independent government with full fiscal powers to encourage inward investment than a constrained government that can't.

[Jeremy]

Last nights debate was a complete embarrassment for Scotland as a whole. The presenter was poor and had no control over proceedings. My English work colleagues are having a right old laugh about it today and are referring to it as 'the pantomime.' Sadly, I think that's what lies in store for us in an independent Scotland. Pantomime politics which would make us, as a nation on the international stage, a laughing stock.

But back to the debate. Darlings stuttering regurgitation of what he trotted out in the last debate was feeble. He only briefly touched on a couple of things that he should have brought to the forefront of the debate.

Mainly, forget the currency plan B, lets look at plan A, the 'logical and desirable' option as touted by Salmond. It's fatally flawed. Westminster dictate our fiscal and monetary policy yet we have no elected MP's there to fight our corner. It's complete suicide, and completely removed from any kind of independence.

And on trident, Salmond says he'll get rid of it but at the same time sign us up to NATO, the American led nuclear war alliance. Not only is that nonsensical and hypocritical in itself but it also shows how naive he really is if he things Obama & Co and going to let him boldly dictate to them just moments after signing up to their club. It simply isn't going to happen.

Also worthy of a mention is the fact that if it wasn't for the votes of the current crop of Scottish MP's, we'd be at war in Syria right now. Proof that we do have a voice, we do have positive influence.

Regards,

Jeremy

[Rosssco]

There's still plenty who believe we can be like Norway, that's the point.

But we won't have full fiscal powers with a currency union with rUK?
Why not use oil revenues to pay off debt, and hence reduces interest payments?
What would we do with £9billion..? Run the NHS for nearly a year..

The point is that with only ~£3.2billion per year from oil and gas (not incl. any deductions for an oil fund), the figures indicate that current spending and tax levels are not sufficient, and we will have to cut spending (austerity max anyone?) or increase tax (competitive place to work and live?), or borrow more (borrowing restrictions will come into play when we join the fabulous currency union). That's not accounting for the spending welcome package the SNP propose if they get into power. All I've ever wanted is for the SNP / nationalists to come clean on things, and let us make up our own minds, rather than the misleading fantasy economics we get.

[Mikie711]

There's still plenty who believe we can be like Norway, that's the point.

But we won't have full fiscal powers with a currency union with rUK?
Why not use oil revenues to pay off debt, and hence reduces interest payments?
What would we do with £9billion..? Run the NHS for nearly a year..

The point is that with only ~£3.2billion per year from oil and gas (not incl. any deductions for an oil fund), the figures indicate that current spending and tax levels are not sufficient, and we will have to cut spending (austerity max anyone?) or increase tax (competitive place to work and live?), or borrow more (borrowing restrictions will come into play when we join the fabulous currency union). That's not accounting for the spending welcome package the SNP propose if they get into power. All I've ever wanted is for the SNP / nationalists to come clean on things, and let us make up our own minds, rather than the misleading fantasy economics we get.

The same could be said of the better together side as well. It all depends which side of the fence your coming from I guess.
The point is that without oil revenue Scotland pays 8.2% of the national tax take with 8.3% of the population. Further given that the tax figures are skewed as a fair chunk of companies tax contributions will be registered south of the border, without oil the deficit to spending is on average less than the UK as a whole. But we are not in a position to change that without fiscal control and still won't be under a devolved government due to constraints imposed from the Treasury.
The debt question is complicated, we pay a population based share of the debt interest but have never actually received that much of the debt. The proportion received has always been less than the population share so how the will unravel that is beyond me.
Also need to remember that this years tax take from O&G was historically the lowest due in part to the loss of production because of the Elgin platform leak, and also inward investment that reduced profits. At some point there will be a swing and the fruits of that investment will mean higher returns. With new fields both coming on line and still being found the north sea is far from dead in the water.
Financially few question if independence is do-able, the question is whether we have the wit to manage it. Which is the 6million dollar question.

[Rosssco]

But we are not being asked by the BT side to take a massive gamble on the countries future prosperty based on manipulated figures. Its unlikely that major companies will re-domicile themselves to an Indy Scotland, hence we will never see such additional tax revenues regardless. If you can let me see the information you have on the fiscal state without oil, I'll happily take read. The reality is we in general, currently contribute more per head than most of the UK, but recieve higher levels of spending. This higher contribution and spending is paid for by the NS. We may not recieve absolutely all the potential revenues back to Scotland, but the flip side is that we are not directly exposed to its effects, whilst enjoying some of the benefits of it - we don;t get all the highs, but avoid many of the lows.

You can read the Institute of Fiscal Studies report here:
http://www.ifs.org.uk/comms/r88.pdf

That's a good point on the fairly assymetric effect a "blip" in oil production shall have for us. Periods of shutdown or maintenance on major production fields have no real direct impact on us at present, where if we were heavily reliant on it, such a similar scenarion could knock chunks of government tax take and budgets the following year. This is not insurmountable, but we will be operating close to the edge of the fiscal edge, which could have subsequent spill-over into effects on public services etc. etc.

Its do-able of course, as long as people know they are entering into a less economically stable scenario, for a period at least.

[Rosssco]

From the IFS report itself:

"A long-term savings fund would be required to be carefully built into any fiscal
rules the Scottish government introduced. The rules would need to define what
proportion of North Sea revenues should be paid into the savings fund and when,
and the circumstances in which the fund could be drawn on to prevent this being
done on an ad hoc basis. However, establishing such a long-term savings fund
would require the Scottish government to reduce public spending to the point
where it could be largely met by revenues excluding those from the North Sea, so
at least some of the revenues from the North Sea could be contributed to the
fund. As Figure 2.4 demonstrated, our basic projection suggests that (even
including revenues from the North Sea) Scotland would face a gap between
spending and revenues in 2017–18 of 4.3% of national income. In order to start
building up an actual savings fund, the Scottish government would first need to
close the majority of this gap."

[thinfourth]

The Norway debate was more of a what we could have had than lets follow what they have done argument. Graeme is right there isn't enough time now to reproduce the fund in the size and numbers talked about. That said, there would still be benefit to having one, over time it would still amount to a substantial amount of money, even at £320,000,000 a year, assuming the lower estimate over 30 years its still £9bn.

Brillant news

£9bn after 30 years

WOooo HHHoooooo


Pity we are overspending by £9bn a year with spending increases promised after we vote YES

[neil]

Pity we are overspending by £9bn a year with spending increases promised after we vote YES

Where does that figure come from?

[Mikie711]

Last years over spend was actually more than that, due in part to the reduced tax from O&G but still higher than the UK average. Put in context however, it's the first time that has happened in years.
Convenient timing but there you go.

Sorry to answer your original question Neil, OBR published figures.

[graeme]

2012-2013, we contributed 9.1% (£53.1bn) of UK tax revenues (using geographic share of North Sea oil, which seems to be the Yesser favourite split).

Then we spent 9.3% (£65.2bn) of UK spending. That's a deficit of £12.1bn.

Reduced revenue from O&G only accounts for £5bn vs 2011-2012 (£6bn vs £11bn), and was worse still in 2009-10 (£5bn), so it's not reliable.



That's a lousy status quo, which pleases me not, but I see no plan from Yes that will do anything but make that worse. Increased spending from some magic pool of money, plus the cost of setting up the administration... and that deficit at the moment is funded at UK borrowing rates; I doubt Indy Scotland would be able to get preferential rates to fund its own deficit, so our debt will get bigger and cost more.

£320m per year into the piggy bank when we're up to our necks in inherited debt and running at a loss of £12bn per year? How's that going to work then?