Really? No-one commenting on tonights debate?

[Rusty]

oh and i'd love to see the back of Salmond & his little puppet.

[j2 lot]

The Queen is Head of State of 53 Commonwealth countries (British Empire as was) . She is still the Monarch of 16 Commonwealth countries, the others have separate rulers.
She would still be the Monarch if Scotland were to gain independence.

[Jeremy]

I get the whole Queen and Commonwealth thing obviously.

It just seems to sit strangely at odds with Salmonds brand of Braveheart politics.

And for that reason, I'm out.

Regards,

Jeremy

[pete]

If we do negotiate a currency union, we then have no control over our own interest rates and the rest of the UK then has oversight of our tax and spending plans. Exactly what is "independent" or in any way desirable about that ? It's pretty much what we already have at the moment with the Scottish Parliament. Darling would have been better to (hypothetically) concede the currency union thing to Salmond then take him to task on this.


Jeremy

No. I don't think that is a currency union. If we negotiate a currency union then we have a say in BoE monetary policy. An independent Scotland would be able to peg to the pound, ie just use the pound lots of countries effectively do that already, the Irish pound was pegged to the UK pound for decades (for example) and did not have a say in interest rates etc.
But having a tied rate does not give England oversight of our tax and spending plans, it is probably the same as Devomax.

The argument for not having control of our interest rates applies today though doesn't it. The BoE rates are being pegged to suit the SE (according to the Chairman) at the expense of other parts of the country. Scotland does not, in any real sense have a say, in fact I would say that is one of the arguments for independence.

Probably.

[scott_e]

If we do negotiate a currency union, we then have no control over our own interest rates and the rest of the UK then has oversight of our tax and spending plans. Exactly what is "independent" or in any way desirable about that ? It's pretty much what we already have at the moment with the Scottish Parliament. Darling would have been better to (hypothetically) concede the currency union thing to Salmond then take him to task on this.


Jeremy

No. I don't think that is a currency union. If we negotiate a currency union then we have a say in BoE monetary policy. An independent Scotland would be able to peg to the pound, ie just use the pound lots of countries effectively do that already, the Irish pound was pegged to the UK pound for decades (for example) and did not have a say in interest rates etc.
But having a tied rate does not give England oversight of our tax and spending plans, it is probably the same as Devomax.

The argument for not having control of our interest rates applies today though doesn't it. The BoE rates are being pegged to suit the SE (according to the Chairman) at the expense of other parts of the country. Scotland does not, in any real sense have a say, in fact I would say that is one of the arguments for independence.

Probably.

This is exactly my issue too. Currency Union = BoE policy with little or no influence from Scotland = no true fiscal independence. The ability to set base rates and offer monetary stimulus are a key tools in managing an economy that we wont have. Granted you can make the argument that members of the Euro have the same issue but IMO this has been the fundamental problem with the Euro causing high unemployment and inflation in member states , plenty of examples of this.

[jason]

My greatest wish, post-referendum, is that somehow the enormous rift in Scottish society that the opening of Pandora's Box has brought back out into the open (when it had been a silent, dormant, less-aired topic) will heal.

The pessimist in me struggles to believe that it will heal. 'Yes' could catalyse sectarianism, 'No' could actually do the same (it could become the personalised "your vote denied our country its freedom!" etc). I sense there'll be more anger… the irony of Salmond's constant complaints 'Yes' is being bullied.

It's been politicised, but to me it doesn't quite fit that (a lot of which pulls on peoples' greed strings). In a typical democracy, everything is transient. This isn't. There is no fixed term, there is no chance to have another say a few years down the road. Soundbites and debate seem so superficial for this level of decision.

But then Salmond and the 'Yes' campaign seem to have an odd understanding of democracy "we have a government we didn't vote-in" (presumably that argument would have been discarded had the opposition currently been in Government).

[Lazydonkey]

But then Salmond and the 'Yes' campaign seem to have an odd understanding of democracy "we have a government we didn't vote-in" (presumably that argument would have been discarded had the opposition currently been in Government).

i find that one strange too - we've had years of labour governments but now suddenly indy is being labelled as our opportunity to kick the tories out.......like you i wonder who "the enemy" would be if labour were still in power. If they get back in does that negate the yes argument ?

As an aside i didnt vote SNP so the current scottish government doesn't represent my views

[BiggestNizzy]

Setup costs have been anything between £600m and £1.5Bn or at worst less than half Scotland’s contribution to HS2. The treasury said £2.7Gn but that was bad maths.

"Yes" said it was bad maths. I don't think the Uk government have said that.

Even if it is bad maths we're still saying it could be anything between £200 million (the yes figure I saw quoted) and £1.58 billion...... quite a big range isn't it ?

Which figure has been used to say we'll all be better off and we can afford all the promises that have been made, along with the fact that Scots hit the NHS and DWP quite hard in comparison to the rest of the UK.

It's possible I’m worrying over nothing and it's all great, but I just want to see the maths. Having a higher GDP is great but that's like me saying "I’ve got a bigger salary so I can keep spending lots of money"......there is a limit to what the higher GDP gives us

Even the treasury admitted it wasn't "their final calculation" after the academic at LSE said they misinterpreted his paper. It's also worth pointing out that even if you were to use the £150m (cost of setting up a government department) x 180 (amount of departments) formula used by the treasury and quoted by Danny Alexander you are still £1.3 billion better off than you would paying for a high speed train to take you from London to Birmingham.
Scot's do hit DWP and the NHS hard we have a lot of deprivation in this country loss of industry but the amount spent on each Scot is still less than the amount spent on each Londoner. This gap will increase when the Barnett formula goes. Luckily for those people we still have the NHS, how long will it be till that's sold off?

Whatever happens one of 3 people will be in charge come the next election.

David Cameron
Ed Miliband
Johann Lamont

As an aside I didn't vote SNP so the current Scottish government doesn't represent my views

That's because you’re demographic/location makes you invisible and politicians don’t care about keeping you sweet.

I don’t get the kick the Tories out thing either they got 16.7% of the vote last time around.

Also worth noting that whoever wins you will be lucky to find anyone who voted for the winning side in 12 months time. No matter who wins something unpopular will happen wither that’s the Change to the Barnett formula, privatisation of the NHS for the No’s or if the yes wins there will be setup costs that will be bigger than they estimated or something and you won’t find anyone who voted for that.

I have heard a few people saying they will move if yes wins, and I call every one out on it nobody will up sticks leave their jobs.

[Dominic]

Slight drift -

I have just seen a review of the days papers - they all seem to be anti Salmon; The Sun, The Record, The Express, The Mail, The Herald, The Times - are there any papers reporting from a "Yes" perspective? I know being a Salmon supporter and a "Yes" supporter are not the same thing.

[Rosssco]

If we do negotiate a currency union, we then have no control over our own interest rates and the rest of the UK then has oversight of our tax and spending plans. Exactly what is "independent" or in any way desirable about that ? It's pretty much what we already have at the moment with the Scottish Parliament. Darling would have been better to (hypothetically) concede the currency union thing to Salmond then take him to task on this.


Jeremy

No. I don't think that is a currency union. If we negotiate a currency union then we have a say in BoE monetary policy. An independent Scotland would be able to peg to the pound, ie just use the pound lots of countries effectively do that already, the Irish pound was pegged to the UK pound for decades (for example) and did not have a say in interest rates etc.
But having a tied rate does not give England oversight of our tax and spending plans, it is probably the same as Devomax.

The argument for not having control of our interest rates applies today though doesn't it. The BoE rates are being pegged to suit the SE (according to the Chairman) at the expense of other parts of the country. Scotland does not, in any real sense have a say, in fact I would say that is one of the arguments for independence.

Probably.

Practically, we will have no real say in BoE monitary policy. It will be set almost exclusively for the benefit of rUK, with very little concern for a country comprising ~10% of the currency use, but no political affiliation. The same situation can be observed in the Eurozone now, where monitary policy is set to ensure the major economies are operating at optimum levels, while the minor players with a different economic model have to take what they are given. They may technically have representation, but in reality they have no real power to change the policy course.

The current scenario at least means that the BoE has to keep Scotland in mind (as a region of the UK) - its not purely aimed at SE England, and parts of the Scottish economy actively benefit from current arrangements (e.g. banking), but that's no problem as our economies are pretty similar and well aligned at present.

If an iScotland decides it wants to impliment its left-dominated policies, it may be in for a shock, given the likely (I'd say almost undoubtedly) high price for an agreement on currency union will be strict limitations on tax, spending and deficit levels dictated by the currency issuer (BoE, effectively rUK government). Thats all just takes us back to square one, where the only wriggle room on fiscal policy (which may be sufficient for some) in altering tax levels. Altering tax levels without the ability to control the currency (assuming we move towards a high tax scenario) may make us less competivitive in comparison to our lower tax rate neighbour with re: business investment. The lefties won't care about this of course (but that's because money grow's on tree's) Economic and business competition with the rUK will not come out in our favour I believe.

Doesn't sound very independant, and actually sounds (to me) worse than the current scenario.. A more devolved arrangement would avoid such risks, allow changing of the Scottish economy to better suit "the government we vote for" through a different tax / spend policy, but without being hamstrung by a SNP policy designed to be as unscary as possible to get them over the line.

Naturally, if you're hung up on the more intangible aspects of the Yes campaign (nothing wrong with that I suppose..) like Trident, Tories, "social justice" then any economic argument is mostly meaningless..

[Rosssco]

Even the treasury admitted it wasn't "their final calculation" after the academic at LSE said they misinterpreted his paper. It's also worth pointing out that even if you were to use the £150m (cost of setting up a government department) x 180 (amount of departments) formula used by the treasury and quoted by Danny Alexander you are still £1.3 billion better off than you would paying for a high speed train to take you from London to Birmingham.
Scot's do hit DWP and the NHS hard we have a lot of deprivation in this country loss of industry but the amount spent on each Scot is still less than the amount spent on each Londoner. This gap will increase when the Barnett formula goes. Luckily for those people we still have the NHS, how long will it be till that's sold off?

Please provide information that more in spent on a Londoner per head than a Scot. I was under the impression that it was the other way around.

The current devolved set-up means the NHS control (as has been the case for many years) and funding is the responsibility of the Scottish government. Its effectively a franchise of the NHS, meaning we can do with it more or less what we like. If we want to retain the current public funded nature of it, we have that choice, currently.

Also, on HS2, I understood that the vast majority of funding comes out of the English block grant? But all this pre-supposes that Scotland has never had a greater than population share of infrastructure investment. I suppose for many nationalists with their incessant self-interest, it doesn't make sense, hence it's another political football.

Where is the Barnett formula going?

[j2 lot]

Scot's do hit DWP and the NHS hard we have a lot of deprivation in this country loss of industry but the amount spent on each Scot is still less than the amount spent on each Londoner. This gap will increase when the Barnett formula goes.

Please provide information that more in spent on a Londoner per head than a Scot. I was under the impression that it was the other way around?

Latest figures are, Scots currently get £1632 or 19% more identifiable public spending per head than England under the Barnett formula.

[Stevoraith]

you are still £1.3 billion better off than you would paying for a high speed train to take you from London to Birmingham.

But all this pre-supposes that Scotland has never had a greater than population share of infrastructure investment.

Some Yes campaigners seem to have a bee in their bonnet about HS2.

If you assume that 'central funding' pays for both HS2 and the new Forth crossing and then do the calulation to work out how much it costs every Scot for both if they are paid for by 'United Kingdon' you'll find theat we are better off than we would be if the English paid for HS2 and Scots paid for the Forth crossing so it's a completely irrelevant complaint.

If I get a chance later on I'll post up the figures to back this up.

[scott_e]

Latest figures are, Scots currently get £1632 or 19% more identifiable public spending per head than England under the Barnett formula.

And apparently the fomula will not change on a NO vote. Seem to recall there was mounting pressure for reforming it too.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politic ... dence.html

[pete]

you are still £1.3 billion better off than you would paying for a high speed train to take you from London to Birmingham.

But all this pre-supposes that Scotland has never had a greater than population share of infrastructure investment.

Some Yes campaigners seem to have a bee in their bonnet about HS2.

If you assume that 'central funding' pays for both HS2 and the new Forth crossing and then do the calulation to work out how much it costs every Scot for both if they are paid for by 'United Kingdon' you'll find theat we are better off than we would be if the English paid for HS2 and Scots paid for the Forth crossing so it's a completely irrelevant complaint.

If I get a chance later on I'll post up the figures to back this up.

A fence sitter writes:

I don't think HMG is paying for the Forth crossing - I think it is Scottish Govt.
Cross -Rail and HS2 I think are HMG.

HS2 is oft used, not as a particular bugbear, but as an example of how spending in the UK is done. (ie if it benefits London then it is infrastructure and HMG pays). It's not an uncommon lament, you hear it in the NW and the NE too...