Independence.

[tut]

Discussion on at the moment as to whether Scotland should have an Independent Military Force. One wifey SMP says definitely yes, we would be able to defend ourselves.

Who against? IOM, or even Switzerland at a push?

tut

[pete]

Discussion on at the moment as to whether Scotland should have an Independent Military Force. One wifey SMP says definitely yes, we would be able to defend ourselves.

Who against? IOM, or even Switzerland at a push?

tut

Was that Any Questions you were listening to?

We could, and this is just a suggestion, stop invading folk. you mock the Swiss but they haven't been invaded for ages. Norway seem to do OK with a budget the size of the one proposed and at least Norway's budget gets spent in Norway.

What about HS2 - paid for by Britain, but only runs from London to Birmingham.

[BiggestNizzy]

I did ask myself who exactly is going to invade ? We will need a military but small enough to protect our seas and airspace. Someone should have asked the defence minister if England had any plans to invade as I don't see anyone else having a go.

Finland has a small army and they kicked the USSR's ass

[woody]

The military isn't about being invaded; it's about employing bums and investing in defense jobs/businesses.

[Peter]

you mock the Swiss but they haven't been invaded for ages. Norway seem to do OK .

Don't both these countries have national service?

Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk 2

[point n squirt]

Afghanistan has no army and the've beaten two superpowers.

[pete]

The military isn't about being invaded; it's about employing bums and investing in defense jobs/businesses.

Oh I agree wholeheartedly but I would say that I would much rather that money was spent in Scotland rather than in England. At the moment, and increasingly so, the money is raised in Scotland and spent in England.

(While the pro-Unionists claim otherwise).

[j2 lot]

. At the moment, and increasingly so, the money is raised in Scotland and spent in England.

(While the pro-Unionists claim otherwise).

The Yes vote quote % to show we contribute 9.9% but only receive 9.3% back
Pro- union put it into cash, with contributions of £56.9billion and receipts of £64.5billion

Just saying

[tut]

Was that Any Questions you were listening to?

We could, and this is just a suggestion, stop invading folk. you mock the Swiss but they haven't been invaded for ages. Norway seem to do OK with a budget the size of the one proposed and at least Norway's budget gets spent in Norway.

What about HS2 - paid for by Britain, but only runs from London to Birmingham.

Yep, Money Program at 1200, The Now Show at 1230, Any Questions at 1310.

tut

[David]

I suppose it's just down to how secure you feel in you own geographic region - we know independence isn't on the minds of the Falkland Islanders right now. But my concern would be an invasion by stealth in the absence of our own forces. After all, we are the spiritual home of one superpower who, one day, may decide we need protected from the wicked east.

[pete]

Was that Any Questions you were listening to?

We could, and this is just a suggestion, stop invading folk. you mock the Swiss but they haven't been invaded for ages. Norway seem to do OK with a budget the size of the one proposed and at least Norway's budget gets spent in Norway.

What about HS2 - paid for by Britain, but only runs from London to Birmingham.

Yep, Money Program at 1200, The Now Show at 1230, Any Questions at 1310.

tut

The chap who asked the question, Hamish, is one of my best friends.

[pete]

. At the moment, and increasingly so, the money is raised in Scotland and spent in England.

(While the pro-Unionists claim otherwise).

The Yes vote quote % to show we contribute 9.9% but only receive 9.3% back
Pro- union put it into cash, with contributions of £56.9billion and receipts of £64.5billion

Just saying

Yes there were a few laughs when we saw that on FB.

So what that mean is Scotland is in deficit. ie We spend more than we get.

But ALL Western countries are in deficit.

What it also shows is that the UK is in deficit, but more in deficit than Scotland. ie Scotland would be better off (financially) if it was not paying into the UK exchequer.

I loved that the Better Together campaign (and I am neither a separatist nor a unionist) published a poster which showed that Scotland would be better off out of the UK! They need some new economists.

[robin]

That's not quite right. It's OK to run at a deficit/run up debts if you have the confidence of the lenders. Depending on exactly which currency scotland use, it may not be possible to finance debts at the same price. So yes, Scotland may have a smaller structural deficit than the UK as a whole, but if our interest rate turns out to be 2-3% higher than the UK rate then we will be much worse off. Add to that the complication that debts are valued in a particular currency. The UK enjoys the luxury of having most of its debts valued in sterling (I believe - I don't actually know this for a fact) and so we can devalue our debts by devaluing our currency and then repay the debts cheaply. The flip side of this is that if Scotland is using sterling post-independence but its debts are valued in, say, euro or USD, then when sterling is devalued our debts will increase accordingly (at least in the sense that we'll need a lot more sterling to pay back the same debt).

Analyzing the minutiae of who pays what within the union is somewhat pointless compared to understanding how the currencies will work after the divorce.

Cheers,
Robin

[pete]

That's not quite right. It's OK to run at a deficit/run up debts if you have the confidence of the lenders. Depending on exactly which currency scotland use, it may not be possible to finance debts at the same price. So yes, Scotland may have a smaller structural deficit than the UK as a whole, but if our interest rate turns out to be 2-3% higher than the UK rate then we will be much worse off. Add to that the complication that debts are valued in a particular currency. The UK enjoys the luxury of having most of its debts valued in sterling (I believe - I don't actually know this for a fact) and so we can devalue our debts by devaluing our currency and then repay the debts cheaply. The flip side of this is that if Scotland is using sterling post-independence but its debts are valued in, say, euro or USD, then when sterling is devalued our debts will increase accordingly (at least in the sense that we'll need a lot more sterling to pay back the same debt).

Analyzing the minutiae of who pays what within the union is somewhat pointless compared to understanding how the currencies will work after the divorce.

Cheers,
Robin

Hmm. Nothing like a few variables to confuse the issue!

The UK debts are valued in sterling (I'm pretty sure too). This makes them more secure than Euro debts as HMG can pay them back by printing money to do so. (Or devalue the currency, it amounts to the same thing.) This why they are seen as a safe haven compared to the Euro zone, where governments can't print money.

Nation economies are all based on the confidence lenders have in the respective economies, or at least they have since the late 20s / early 30s when they came off the Gold standard (qv Maynard Keynes). So the question becomes "How much confidence will the markets have in the economy of an independent Scotland vs other world economies?"

Except that wasn't the question the OP was referring to, but a poster put out that showed that Scotland was in deficit, attempting to show that it was in a worse position than the percentages suggested. But the political poster wasn't talking about the confidence of markets but showing that the numbers meant Scotland was in deficit. Which anyone who has seen a paper in the last 5 years must have realised, the truth is the deficit is less than that of the UK as a whole, ie despite what the press would have us believe we pay in more than we get.

Scotland is unlikely to adopt it's own currency (IMHO) but it could. It could also take the Euro which I doubt anyone would think would be a good idea (as a nation is unable to print money then one of he other variables has to take the slack, hence massive unemployment in Eire/Greece et al. It could keep sterling, it doesn't need permission it just does it. In which case, in the short term, nothing changes except that Scotland has very slightly reduced it's deficit.


Probably.

Pete

[robin]

I'm not sure what the original point was (or was meant to be). Re-reading it, it was about having a military. I'm not sure I have a sensible opinion about that.

What changes when Scotland continues to use sterling is that when the BoE prints 1 trillion pounds, their economy gets to keep them.

Cheers,
Robin