BonnieSituation wrote: » I'll be quite interested in what rUK decide to partition this time.
BonnieSituation wrote: » Sounds very English doesn't it?
BonnieSituation wrote: » I'd be a bit concerned if a part of my country wanted out, had a close fought referendum on the matter (from a zero base) and since then the biggest advocate for that part of the State exiting the UK has dominated local politics and local representation to the National Parliament.
BonnieSituation wrote: » But then again, I would be concerned if there was several insurrections and 2 civil wars in the space of 60 years all about leaving my State. But that's just me.
Peregrinus wrote: » I'm looking at the Scottish government figures from 2018 (which I think are the most recent to be published). They're based on the final destination in the export transaction. So if a Scottish company sells good to a customer in France, that's a Scottish export to France, even if the goods are trucked to an English port and then shipped from their to France. But if a Scottish company sells goods to an English customer, and the English customer then sells the goods on to a French customer, that's two transactions — an export from Scotland to England, which shows up in the Scottish export figures as an export to rest of UK, followed by an export from England to France, which doesn't show up at all in the Scottish export figures but (presumably) shows up in the UK figures as a UK export to France (and, if English figures are preared by someone, would show up there as an English export to France). (That's consistent with how export transactions are generally treated. If a Spanish company sellls to a French company sells to an Italian company, the first transaction shows up as an export from Spain and an import to France, and the second transaction shows up as an export from France and an import to Italy.)
BonnieSituation wrote: » Are we still counting Scottish exports that use English ports as English exports? There was a massive hullabaloo about the technicalities in 2014, when it essentially made to look like Scotland ONLy exports to England on the basis of the entry/exit point of the goods!
Peregrinus wrote: » 60%. But your point is good nevertheless. Still, worthing noting that when we broke the link with sterling, in 1978, 48% of our trade was being done with the UK.
Peregrinus wrote: » To be fair, forgottenhills' point is that disentangling Scotland from the UK will be much more challenging exercise than disentangling the Irish Free State was a hundred years ago. And that's true. On the plus side, Scotland has much stronger and more resilient state capacity to tackle the challenge than we had a hundred years ago. Plus, all going well the Scots won't be fighting a civil war at the same time.
Capt'n Midnight wrote: » Scotland is stuck with Sterling until they diversify. When over 90% of your exports go to one country you don't have a lot of financial options.
BonnieSituation wrote: » It's obvious to the likes of you and I. I mean, if only there was some sort of precedent for a part of the UK leaving that could give guidance of some sort.
forgottenhills wrote: » I don't think that anyone doubts that Scotland could make a go of it in the long run but the medium term will be very difficult.
Has any 1st world country made a huge constitutional change in recent decades, in a world made much more complicated by complex social welfare, rigorous borrowing requirements and closely interconnected trading arrangements that have to be redefined? Perhaps Eastern Europe is closest after 1990, but they didn't really come from a 1st world baseline and expect standards to be maintained. And when we set up a state in 1922 the world and the nation state were a great deal less complex structures. Think even about the IT system changes involved in a state change for one thing - daunting.
Peregrinus wrote: » Obviously, if Scotland transitions to independence, a lot of stuff is going to have to be agreed between Scotland and rump UK. It would be dishonest and Brexity of a Scottish government to state baldly that X or Y will happen, if X or Y can only happen by agreement. All they can to is say that Scotland will enter into negotiations with a view to seeking agreement on X or Y. Such a statement is not lacking in detail; it's lacking in false reassurance. But that's a good thing. You can, of course, object that this means that voters won't know things will play out if they opt for independence. But the answer to that is that they don't know how things will play out if they opt to remain part of the UK. A big selling point for the unionist side in 2014 was that an independent Scotland would be out of the EU and would have to apply to accede, so if you value EU membership you should vote "no". Well, that didn't exactly play out as expected, did it? The future is always attended by a degree of uncertainty; independence movements usually succeed on the basis of the possiblities they open up.
forgottenhills wrote: » And with respect I wasn't suggesting that would happen. I was merely listing some of the greatest challenges that the Scots would need solved from day one of an independent Scotland so you are inventing your own straw man there. That White Paper published by the Scottish government in advance of the 2014 referendum was unfortunately short on signed-off definites and timelines that would constitute a solid plan to most people on some of the crucial aspects of an independent state such as currency and EU accession. Instead it listed its aspirations as to what it hoped would happen in relation to key areas such as its new currency, EU accession and dividing the UK national debt with the remainder of the UK.For instance the White Paper stated that it would continue to use the pound as its currency under the governance of the Bank of England (and backed internationally by BOE assurances) whereas the actuality was that there were no assurances in place from the English authorities that a 3rd country would be allowed operate its currency in this way. In reality Scotland would likely have to tie its currency to the Euro for 2 years to be allowed accession to the EU as it would likely find that it was necessary to join the Eurozone. This creates an economic problem for Scotland as most of its trade is in GBP with the rest of the UK and creates a referendum issue as independence voters have not been overly enthused about ditching the pound up to now. There was also no concrete plan set out for how Scotland could rejoin the EU coming from a place outside the EU after Brexit (which was mentioned as a possibility). There was also no mention of the Shetland Island choosing to become a Crown Dependency like the Faeroes or the Channel Islands and taking their fishing rights and oil reserves with them in the event of Scottish independence (a choice which is becoming a growing possibility). For a commentary on the tough choices facing Scotland on the independent currency issue alone here is a decent article. I'm not saying that Scotland wouldn't make a good fist of independence in the medium to long term and I wish them well as an observer on the sidelines. I am saying that they have to outline some hard choices and initial uncertainties in some major areas to voters ahead of any other referendum and still sell that deal despite some pig in a poke elements. So there is no guarantee that voters will take Scotland independent any time soon, this will probably depend on Brexit Britain post Jan 2021 being a fiasco. It would have been so much easier if they had wanted to, and done this like ourselves, back in 1922 without the complexities of the modern era!
Aegir wrote: » England isn't worried about Scottish independence full stop, it’s only the politicians.
Peregrinus wrote: » With respect, there’s no suggestion that Scotland should vote for independence and then declare independence the day after. You’re attacking a straw man of your own devising here.
Peregrinus wrote: » Quite. And those of us who are older than about 12 can remember the 2014 referendum, in which the Scottish government published a detailed white paper some months before the referendum outlining how it proposed the Scotland should transition to independence, what its position would be on hosting the UK’s nuclear deterrent, how the UK national debt might be apportioned, what defence forces an independent Scotland would maintain, its fiscal policy, its currency policy, etc, etc. So, not only the Awful Example of Brexit, but also past experience, suggest that the Scots won’t be invited to vote on independence without a joined up plan for how it is to be delivered.
BonnieSituation wrote: » Well I guess England shouldn't be too worried about Scotland becoming independent from an energy security pov. Well done England.
Aegir wrote: » Boris said wind, not just renewable. The world's four largest offshore windfarms are in the UK England and more are currently being built.https://doggerbank.com/https://hornseaprojectone.co.uk/https://www.iberdrola.com/about-us/lines-business/flagship-projects/east-anglia-one-offshore-wind-farmhttps://walneyextension.co.uk/https://londonarray.com/
A Dub in Glasgo wrote: » Where do you think England is going to get their renewable energy from?
Aegir wrote: » Is there? Not everything is about Scotland
A Dub in Glasgo wrote: » There is a direct correlation between this announcemnt two months agohttps://twitter.com/guardian/status/1313232875110662147 and thishttps://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1286250551760637953
Peregrinus wrote: » With respect, there’s no suggestion that Scotland should vote for independence and then declare independence the day after. You’re attacking a straw man of your own devising here. Quite. And those of us who are older than about 12 can remember the 2014 referendum, in which the Scottish government published a detailed white paper some months before the referendum outlining how it proposed the Scotland should transition to independence, what its position would be on hosting the UK’s nuclear deterrent, how the UK national debt might be apportioned, what defence forces an independent Scotland would maintain, its fiscal policy, its currency policy, etc, etc. So, not only the Awful Example of Brexit, but also past experience, suggest that the Scots won’t be invited to vote on independence without a joined up plan for how it is to be delivered. A common trope among unionists, but in fact untrue. Which is not to say that independent Scotland wouldn’t face some tough budgetary questions. But if you frame the questions on the assumption that Scottish public expenditure is paid for by English taxpayers, you have misunderstood the problem. It's true that public expenditure per head in Scotland is higher than tax revenue per head in Scotland. So. yes, the Scots are running a massive deficit, as you say. But it doesn't follow that the English are paying for this and, in fact, they're not. Because public expenditure per head in England is also higher than tax revenue per head in England. So, if the tax paid by the English doesn't even cover expenditure in England, how can we argue that English taxes are paying for expenditure in Scotland? They're not. How is this miracle achieved, you may well ask? If the Scots are spending all this money on themselves that they're not raising in taxes, and that they're not getting from the English, where are they getting it? For that matter, where are the English getting the money that they spend on themselves that they're not getting from tax revenues? The answer is simple and familiar; the UK is running a budget deficit. They are borrowing the money that they are spending that isn't covered by tax revenue. And they are borrowing money to spend both in England and in Scotland. But are they borrowing more (per head) to spend in Scotland than they are in England? That depends on how you account for tax revenues - how you allocate them between tax raised in England and tax raised in Scotland. And, as with most accounting decisions, more than one view is possible on how it ought to be done. The clever chaps at the Treasury treat oil royalties neither as taxes raised in England nor as taxes raised in Scotland. Instead they put them in a category called "national output" which they invented for the purpose. This increases the apparent excess of expenditure over tax revenue in both countries. Your Scot, however, takes the view that this is duplicitous Sassenach accounting trickery. If Scotland and England were independent of one another, he points out, and oil royalties were accounted for according to in whose territorial waters the oilfields lay, then a bit more than 90% of the oil royalties would flow to Scotland. And if you redo the excess-of-public-expenditure-over-tax-revenue figures on that basis, then the (per capita) deficit in Scotland and England look a lot closer. Both countries would be running a deficit, but not a hugely different deficit, per capita.The Scottish fiscal situation would be more volatile, certainly, since oil royalties would represent a much greater proportion of Scotland's revenue than of England's. Oil prices bounce around quite a lot, and oil revenues accordingly. But in principle, at any rate, that could work out well or badly for the Scots. They'd also have the medium-to-long-term problem that oil resources are finite, and at some point the oil revenues would decline and eventually disappear. That's not a trivial problem, but it's not an immediate one. Scotland isn't currently receiving a massive subvention from English taxpayers that would disappear if they became independent. Scotland is not Northern Ireland, in short.
forgottenhills wrote: » Realisation of Scottish independence is a long way away imo for practical reasons, despite any growing wish in Scotland for the same. If it voted independence tomorrow and declared independence the day after or after 1st January it would be a new country without a guaranteed currency, without a membership plan for the EU and without the financial resources to pay its way without significant annual borrowing. All these are surmountable hurdles but the latter two will take many years to overcome. There are lots of other hurdles such as the stationing of nuclear subs, ownership of the declining gas fields, how to allocate the existing UK national debt, the attitude of the Shetlands etc.
forgottenhills wrote: » The Scots have seen how the absence of planning has led to confusion and upheaval with Brexit so I think they will be loath to vote for independence without a clear plan on the practical elements. So Sturgeon shouldn't be going bald-headed for another independence poll without a joined up plan for how independence was going to be delivered and funded and where Scotland wanted to be in the medium term.
forgottenhills wrote: » Scottish independence is even more complex than Brexit if you consider it. It has to negotiate a Withdrawal Agreement and a free trade deal with the rest of the UK, it has to set up large areas of government and security forces that it currently doesn't have under devolution, it has to try to accelerate an entry plan with the EU. And it has to work out how it will pay its way in the world, as current stats show that is is heavily subsidised by taxes emanating largely from the South East of England.
Capt'n Midnight wrote: » Currency is guaranteed as it's backed up by Sterling deposits. Nuclear subs - see treaty ports. Allocating the UK dept is the big one. How much spending and how much of the debt was to pay for the nuclear deterrent ? Or HS2 or other English construction projects. There are good few items that should be crossed off. UK police forces and NHS and civil service etc all all regional so that's already done. Scotland has a separate legal system. Is there any particular area you are aware of that is not done regionally ?? The entire UK is subsidised by London and some of the home counties to the West of it. Not paying for Trident and Son Of Trident will save billions. A lot of the revenues from fossil fuel went south of the border. Comparing Ireland north and south, the only real competitive advantage of the south was that we could make our own rules. Being in the UK has meant that NI went from having 90% of the islands manufacturing industry to not having 90% of it. An independent Scotland wouldn't face a 30% tariff in the US on Whisky. Direct Foreign investment should improve. Planshttps://www2.gov.scot/resource/0042/00422987.pdf tl;dr version an independent Scotland could follow Norway.
Water John wrote: » forgottenhills, your points have already been well aired. Don't think anybody involved underestimates the task in hand if Indy Ref is to be successful and planned. On the other hand, many countries have been down this road.
Capt'n Midnight wrote: » The entire UK is subsidised by London and some of the home counties to the West of it. Not paying for Trident and Son Of Trident will save billions. A lot of the revenues from fossil fuel went south of the border. Comparing Ireland north and south, the only real competitive advantage of the south was that we could make our own rules. Being in the UK has meant that NI went from having 90% of the islands manufacturing industry to not having 90% of it. An independent Scotland wouldn't face a 30% tariff in the US on Whisky. Direct Foreign investment should improve.
forgottenhills wrote: » Realisation of Scottish independence is a long way away imo for practical reasons, despite any growing wish in Scotland for the same. If it voted independence tomorrow and declared independence the day after or after 1st January it would be a new country without a guaranteed currency, without a membership plan for the EU and without the financial resources to pay its way without significant annual borrowing. All these are surmountable hurdles but the latter two will take many years to overcome. There are lots of other hurdles such as the stationing of nuclear subs, ownership of the declining gas fields, how to allocate the existing UK national debt, the attitude of the Shetlands etc. The Scots have seen how the absence of planning has led to confusion and upheaval with Brexit so I think they will be loath to vote for independence without a clear plan on the practical elements. So Sturgeon shouldn't be going bald-headed for another independence poll without a joined up plan for how independence was going to be delivered and funded and where Scotland wanted to be in the medium term. Scottish independence is even more complex than Brexit if you consider it. It has to negotiate a Withdrawal Agreement and a free trade deal with the rest of the UK, it has to set up large areas of government and security forces that it currently doesn't have under devolution, it has to try to accelerate an entry plan with the EU. And it has to work out how it will pay its way in the world, as current stats show that is is heavily subsidised by taxes emanating largely from the South East of England.
Markcheese wrote: » Well the brexit vote was largely emotive , and reason doesn't always trump emotion .. Also its scotland currency system too .. they may negotiate to leave sterling .. but they already issue their own paper currency ... doesn't mean there wasn't be a run on bank a/cs being transferred south of the border ..( or north if brexit goes completely pear shaped )
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w2.vanillicon.com/v2/284f2526e18ff7e4c08066f9ed850ed0.svg)
