Independence SE Poll

[Rosssco]

There's the really straight forward BBC version:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-28879267

[graeme]

BBC figures match scotland.gov.uk figures I found.

We now have the added concern of backlash against high spending in Scotland, even with a resounding No vote. "Why should Scotland get more than its share just because it's sparsely populated and unhealthy? Cut spending in Scotland!"

Bloomin' marvelous work Salmond... couldn't just keep quite, could you?

[Lazydonkey]

Those figures do make you question how we are going to increase public spending.... Let alone keep our head above water.

Wtf isn't no coming out with such stark figures?

[neil]

Those figures do make you question how we are going to increase public spending.... Let alone keep our head above water.

Wtf isn't no coming out with such stark figures?

Erm, assuming their figures are correct only 1 year in the last 5 has Scotlands defecit as % of GDP been worse than the UK as a whole so it's not really a great No argument

Overall it looks like Scotlands running with a lower defecit.

[Lazydonkey]

That's not my point. It's still running a deficit. Nowhere in the unicorns and rainbows documentation has it said that Scotland is spending more than its earning.

How on earth will we pay for the split and and all of the increased spending when we aren't keeping our heads above water just now?

[tut]

If it ain't broke, don't fix it, as my old Gran'pappy used to say.

We already have as good or better standard of living than the rest of the UK, we live in a better Country, do not pay prescription charges (you lot will need them some day), free student fees, faster doctor and dentist appointments, etc.

tut

[Corranga]

If it ain't broke, don't fix it, as my old Gran'pappy used to say.

We already have as good or better standard of living than the rest of the UK, we live in a better Country, do not pay prescription charges (you lot will need them some day), free student fees, faster doctor and dentist appointments, etc.

tut

This is a large part of what I see. The risk vs. reward ratio is crazy, especially given that we're not going to raise taxes, or tax the rich more, or reduce spending, in a YES Scotland. Maybe Scotland becomes a pyramid scheme country, or the oil revenues are used to buy tickets in other countries lotteries or something. I guess I'll have a skim through the white paper for that section.

What Better Together seem to be failing at clearly stating (probably with a risk of generating sound bites that Salmond will simply repeat over and over again on TV) is that Scotland is already better than the rest of the UK, and can prosper further as part of the UK with more devolved powers combined with the security of the UK, and the lack of ability to screw it all up. I guess it's a bit like giving a teenager an allowance. They will spend it on shiny things then ask for more, but mummy and daddy already secure the house they live in and the food they eat, so all is ok.
iScotland will apparently buy all of the shiny things that everyone wants and not have to ask for more. Maybe they've forgotten about the mortgage, car loan, and need to eat..

[BiggestNizzy]

How do they work out Scottish GDP? as far as I was aware the inland revenue didn't have any geographical data on what it brings in, the GERS figures make a big play on oil revenue but I can't see anything else on the other forms of govermental income. like income tax, VAT, corporation tax etc etc. exports south of the border wouldn't be considered in any current calculations either.

It's also worth mentioning that the cost per person that Scotland does so well on (second only to northern Ireland) doesn't take into account defence spending, capital projects (like HS2 and cross rail, maybe even the 2nd forth crossing) and the cost of running the country these are all taken off the top before it's divied out, and yes we do get more than the south east.

[David]

That is quite stark!

You kind of become deaf to the claims that there's a such a big shortfall, but it's real, and we need to addressed it at some point - probably sooner if an iScotland has no formal currency agreement. The problem for me is that, once given the taxes raising task, an iScotland may find it easier to make spending cuts than raise taxes and those who rely on the state for there welfare will suffer most. I'm just trusting that those who are most likely to be in the firing line will understand that the patriotic dream comes at a cost and they will be paying it.

[Rosssco]

Those figures do make you question how we are going to increase public spending.... Let alone keep our head above water.

Wtf isn't no coming out with such stark figures?

Erm, assuming their figures are correct only 1 year in the last 5 has Scotlands defecit as % of GDP been worse than the UK as a whole so it's not really a great No argument

Overall it looks like Scotlands running with a lower defecit.

But it relatively clearly indicates how NS oil props up our economy - it has a bad year, it will filter though to us..

If we weren't running a relatively big fiscal deficit and oil genuinly was an add whose fluctations didn't cause significant peaks and troughs, then I might say that its a economic risk worth taking. But its not.

No has being stating these figures for a while, and trying to indicate that we are lining ourselves up for a potential ~£6billion black hole (that we will have to find money form somewhere to fund). I think for most sensible people this has sunk in, but the YESNP tactic has been to inject a layer of confusion and obfuscation into the debate that has been quite effective, and then piling on the hysteria and all the emotional "hope" baggage we are forced to wade though. Oh and a large measure of victimisation crap. Basically they'll try anything to get you to vote for them. As said before, they only have to win once. They don't have to worry about being voted out in 4 / 5 years time, they only have to get across their idea / aim accomplished, irrespective of whether that's really the right thing on balance.

[tut]

I do wish Darling had not mentioned that "the Government could not prevent an Independent Scotland using the pound" as Salmond then latched onto it and kept repeating it over and over in his usual gloating way.

Why can neither of them realise that they would be far more effective and gain more respect, if they just kept quiet until the other one had finished, then had their say. They just look stupid trying to shout over each other for minutes at a time, neither can be heard making their point, and there must have been many that just switched off as I did.

tut

[graeme]

I'm convinced on finances: It's very much a "No" for me. The oil-fund is a farce, income is unstable, and we're running at a large loss which we can better afford to manage as part of a larger economy.

Next issue for me is defense. I quite like the Yes defense plans, and strongly disagree with the disproportionate role that the UK insists on taking in world affairs, at great financial and human cost. In a nutshell: http://www.yesscotland.net/answers/what ... sh-defence

The UK spends far too much on defense for my liking, proportional to GDP and per capita. I think £2.5bn spending plan for Scotland's defense is proportional, and 15k permanent troops is reasonable. It's inline with other NATO countries by size and wealth. I dislike the way bases are closing in Scotland and moving south, and if we're going to pay for defense, I'd like it to benefit Scottish communities and economy.

Of course, it relies on us just walking away with military assets that nobody has agreed we can have, and being allowed to join various alliances, which is not guaranteed.

Next issue, all defense contracts in Scotland will head south. No more ship-building. I can't work out what the cost of this loss of skilled work would be, to balance that with the increase in economic boost from our defense spending staying in Scotland, but my gut feeling is we'll be worse off economically. Figures would be nice.

Better together's main argument seems to be "UK has the best forces in the world, stay with us", but I don't agree... I can't stand the UK policy of policing the world and wading into every conflict. I personally don't feel like Scotland is under any threat from terror. The worst attack any terrorist managed up here was halted by a swift kick in the balls by an airport worker. If we keep out of other peoples' wars, they won't come looking for us any more than they plan to invade Denmark or Luxembourg. We can spend on having an army, and contribute to peace-keeping proportionally without being the instigators every damned time.

Anyone got any views one way or the other? A very strong promise to stop looking for trouble, and a reasonable financial impact assessment might be a tick in the Yes box for me.

[pete]

I'm convinced on finances: It's very much a "No" for me. The oil-fund is a farce, income is unstable, and we're running at a large loss which we can better afford to manage as part of a larger economy.


Next issue for me is defense. I quite like the Yes defense plans, and strongly disagree with the disproportionate role that the UK insists on taking in world affairs, at great financial and human cost. In a nutshell: http://www.yesscotland.net/answers/what ... sh-defence

The UK spends far too much on defense for my liking, proportional to GDP and per capita. I think £2.5bn spending plan for Scotland's defense is proportional, and 15k permanent troops is reasonable. It's inline with other NATO countries by size and wealth. I dislike the way bases are closing in Scotland and moving south, and if we're going to pay for defense, I'd like it to benefit Scottish communities and economy.

Of course, it relies on us just walking away with military assets that nobody has agreed we can have, and being allowed to join various alliances, which is not guaranteed.

Next issue, all defense contracts in Scotland will head south. No more ship-building. I can't work out what the cost of this loss of skilled work would be, to balance that with the increase in economic boost from our defense spending staying in Scotland, but my gut feeling is we'll be worse off economically. Figures would be nice.

Better together's main argument seems to be "UK has the best forces in the world, stay with us", but I don't agree... I can't stand the UK policy of policing the world and wading into every conflict. I personally don't feel like Scotland is under any threat from terror. The worst attack any terrorist managed up here was halted by a swift kick in the balls by an airport worker. If we keep out of other peoples' wars, they won't come looking for us any more than they plan to invade Denmark or Luxembourg. We can spend on having an army, and contribute to peace-keeping proportionally without being the instigators every damned time.

Anyone got any views one way or the other? A very strong promise to stop looking for trouble, and a reasonable financial impact assessment might be a tick in the Yes box for me.

Your defence section is very well put. I like that a lot.

[Rosssco]

My only view on defence is that while we can have our own views on why we really need significant defensive capabilities, and what they are used for, we must be careful that we don't have an overly short-sighted view on threats (internal and external) that we don't see at present, and that may be round the corner. I don't think China will invade next year, but we must be concious that our way of life in the western world is in someways reliant on our relationship and involvement with the rest of the world. People often talk about the negative aspects of intervention for instance, but often negate the positive aspects having a military force with some global reach and some big allies.

Here's the Scotland Institute study document on defence:

http://www.scotlandinstitute.com/wp-con ... t_Inst.pdf

[Mikie711]

I hate to point out the obvious, but the UK figures are there as well. In or out we are still running up a massive national debt. Sorry, massive is scare mongering, it's COLOSSAL.

National Debt Clock

What the figures show is that we don't generate as much of the debt as the rest of the UK. On the GERS figures for 2011-2012 Scotland GDP/head was £28,496 against the UK's of £24,122. We spent 113% of GDP or an overspend of £7.6bn. The UK was 121% of GDP or an overspend of £121bn. For that year Scotland's deficit against GDP was 5% the UK was 7.9%. So we received 5% of the national debt that year but our interest payments are population based and so we paid 8.4% of the debt repayment figure, or £4.1bn of the £52bn debt interest repayment.
The 2 largest parts of the Scottish deficit for that year was debt interest repayment and defense. Scotland's revenue that year was £56.9bn, our identified expenditure that year was £55.5bn, our allocate expenditure was £9bn which is for the things not devolved and in control of Westminster. The 2 largest were defense £3.3bn and debt interest payments £4.1bn.
2012/13 Scotland lagged behind the UK for the first time in 30 years, due in large part to the reduction in oil revenue. Now can me cynical, but this was also the first year the oil companies got extra tax breaks for write downs against profits and also the lost production from the Elgin shut down. But historically not the norm, the sort of thing an oil fund can protect against, however small.