Member Since: 11 Jan 2010
Location: NW Highlands
Posts: 5098
G_Cam wrote:
How does the Isle Of Man function.. Im not sure on the setup over there... is it more like Devo Max? It has always been a question I have been meaning to find the answer to? (Same with the Channel Isles... they are In the UK but Not... if you see what I mean)
The IoM does use the pound without currency union i.e. Sterlingisation.
As such it has almost zero ability to borrow money, hence it has to have a balanced budget before it runs out of reserves. The IoM has about £400m of reserves which it is digging into somewhat at the moment but plans to have a balanced budget in the next 24 months or so.
In not having a credible lender of last resort the banks need to maintain still higher capital ratios.
The impact of RBS, BoS, etc having to maintain higher capital ratios would be further reduced lending and competitive disadvantage versus RUK based banks.
Anyway IIRC Salmond's fiscal committee pretty much ruled out Sterlingisation being workable.Black 05 TDV6 HSE Auto
Grey 05 TDV6 HSE Auto (Gone)
54 TDV6 SE Man (killed by me )
16th Feb 2014 5:33 pm
DSL Keeper of the wheelie bin
Member Since: 11 May 2006
Location: Off again! :-)
Posts: 72968
Totally at odds with Wee Eck's view of (to paraphrase) "we'll negotiate that after the vote and of course we'll get everything we want coz it's in our electoral book". Spain will block it deffinately, plus joining the € will be manditory if it does want in, along with Schengen. The thing about negotiations is you don't always get everything you want. A concept lost on Wee Eck.
Would be a very interesting time north of the border. New currency (already treatening to defaulting on its slice of the UK debt if not using Sterling), not in the EU and border controls (as not in the EU, even if in the EU rUK would want them as Scotland would have to be part of Schengen). Seems a recipe for economic suicide.
16th Feb 2014 6:17 pm
mse
Member Since: 27 Jun 2005
Location: Shropshire
Posts: 2702
Another funny thing - we (The UK) could also vote for them not to be allowed into Europe
No Pound, No Europe vote - now that's close to bullying Mike
is currently the best place to bury funds....also tax rates very low if you switch your pay to there...
also the R....o...Ireland is pretty good with your funds gauranteed by the Govmt....
Jersey is also OK with tax at 20% or lower if you can wangle it.
Caymans ....looks OK but a long waya away if you want to draw cash
Scotland ought to be smart enough to be "attractive" ...i.e.......low tax zone...then a currency would workBREXIT - done properly.
Right now ...We need Government - not Politics
Save the Dipstick Flagbearer-keep it simple, less likely to fail campaign-agenda items:Starting Handles, Acetylene Lamps.
Founder: Dipsticks-R-Us Inc
D3 HSE-perfectly formed, passenger friendly...has real DIPSTICK
Jag XK-but sadly no DIPSTICK...HUGE design fault
FL2 has DIPSTICK..."real comfort in rear seats"
VW Golf wondermobile (?)..has real DIPSTICK
Morris Minor..original DIPSTICK technology..and a real KEY.
OK, before we start can I ask that contributors refrain from childish remarks and generally snide comments which personalise the debate - whether about protagonists, sympathisers, or the case for the defence of the union?
I am totally sick of hearing about 'fishy characters', pseudo dictators and wee Eck, as well as ill-informed stuff about how the English have already bailed-out the 'Scottish banks' and how it's all a very left-wing idea that appeals to hardened Labour voters only.
There are a number of aspect to this debate which cannot be understood if you are blinded by the Daily Mail, or even the less than impartial BBC.
The first thing to say is that it's not about the SNP. This is very important to understand and there is a significant chunk of the Scottish populous who have never voted for the SNP, who don't particularly like Alex Salmond and, in fact, who don't have a lot of time for politics generally, yet will still be voting YES in September. An analogy (very quick) might be that I don't like the Evoque, would never be interested in buying one, yet I'll still have a Range Rover and I'm very happy with it.
Once you realise/accept that it's not about the SNP, you can start to look beyond the nonsense that's available to the uninformed in the main stream media.
The next point of note is that we've been here before! In 1979, there was a Yes/No referendum and the vote was 'won' by the Yes camp with over 50% of the count. Do you still think it's just Alex Salmond who wants this? What happened in 1979 was that Westminster moved the goalposts and effectively nullified the result by requiring that a specific percentage of turnout was achieved. Why should a Scottish referendum have been granted this honour, when no general election or European election did or does to this day?
So, it's not about the SNP and Alex Salmond is not on a one-man crusade.....
Where we are today is not where Westminster wants to be. The Edinburgh agreement has left the option of abusing a democratic vote with little or no room to manoeuvre, so they are now looking at a variety of other tactics to ensure a No vote. Make no mistake, Westminster NEEDS a no vote. They understand (more than the media) that there is a substantial groundswell north of the border who have always been keen on independence and they need to target these people with scare stories in order to make them 'do the right thing'. So, they have resorted to discrediting the protagonists and attempting to divide the supporters with tacit (London based) media bias, scare stories and a total lack of positive campaigning for the union.
highlands wrote:
What is at issue is whether it [Scotland] will be better or worse off.
In FACT the biggest nonsense about financial basket cases appears to be your assertion that RUK will be the new Greece without Scotland.
Scotland more than pays its way in the UK (8.4 per cent of the UK population, contributing 9.9 per cent of UK tax revenues but getting back only 9.3 per cent of public spending in return). Source: Government and Expenditure Revenue Report 2011-12
We also know an independent Scotland would be in the world’s top ten wealthiest countries based on GDP per head of population. GDP per head in Scotland is about £24k whereas it is only £20k per head south of the border. From the same (UK) government reports, Scotland generated £1,700 more in tax per person than the UK as a whole in 2011-12. In fact, Scotland has generated more tax per head than the UK every year for the past 32 years - Even when oil prices were lowest.
Once you accept that the notion of Scotland being a nation of scroungers is a MYTH, you begin to see why a Westminster government of any hue would not want to loose them. Which begs the question of why our so-called media is content to keep the myth going along nicely across all parts of the UK. Only the Financial Times has had the guts to tell some of the truth, but that ma be due to the fact that it's readership in particular likes to be conversant with financial FACT - as their predominantly London City readership will need to be aware of what happens if......
highlands wrote:
All media has bias, though rarely, outside of say N.Korea 'entirely biased', but we are dealing with FACTS are we not?
As you are doubtless aware, there was a year-long academic study carried out by researchers at a Scottish university has revealed that both the BBC [and STV] have been favouring the No campaign in their TV news coverage of the independence referendum. Whilst you may say that this is only one study, I'd be grateful if you can show any (independent) opposing material which provides a different objective analysis......... Didn't think so!
JMC wrote:
Who has the courage to realise that Alex Salmond is not a one-man army, but in fact, has the clearest popular mandate to be head of a government of ANY politician in the UK today.
highlands wrote:
And this has any relevance to this particular debate because?.....
This has every relevance for the reasons outline in my opening paragraphs. The debate is being stifled and important points are being glossed over by a Westminster government, a Westminster opposition AND a London centric media who would all prefer to suggest that Alex Salmond is on a personal crusade which is not relevant to the majority of Scots. The fact is that his popular mandate to govern in Scotland and with Scotland's interests at his heart has greater foundations than the mandate of all those who seek to discredit him.
highlands wrote:
From what I have seen the most current figures are:
Revenue per capital raised from Scotland (including N.Sea Oil&Gas) £11,079.
Spending per capita in Scotland £12,629.
That would mean that Scotland is a 'loss-maker for the UK'.
It is widely accepted on both sides that Scotland raises more in tax than it spends (GERS report). In very simplistic terms, I can't see how that can be described as a loss-maker. In the UK, there are significant regional variations in prosperity, with the South East of England and southern Scotland being the richest areas per capita. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_United_Kingdom
highlands wrote:
Of course, the whole of the UK currently makes a loss. Each are running a deficit. The IFS project, however, that an independent Scotland will have a greater long-run deficit than RUK and that compared to the UK needing permanent tax increase or spending cuts of 0.8% of national income Scotland would require 4.1% (£6bn) in addition to those already tabled.
The whole of the UK runs a fiscal debit but Scotland runs a balance budget (unlike the UK) as it is not in any position to borrow money. Our assumed fiscal debt includes our 'share' of debt repayments to the UK's £1.3Trillion borrowing. This is an interesting concept, since much of the debt has funded projects which specifically pay for London centric policies and aims.
Scotland is allocated a share of the UK deficit based on a population percentage (8.4%). This means that in 2011-12, Scotland ran up a £7.6bn deficit but got debited with £10.2bn of the UK deficit onto our debt balance – £2.6bn more than our fair share.
Scotland already pays interest on the 8.4% of UK debt we’re allocated – which according to GERS amounted to just under £4.1bn in debt interest payments for 2011-12 (or 6.3% of Scotland’s entire expenditure). But the really interesting information only comes when you start to look at who that debt is owed to.
Since 2009 the Bank of England has pursued a policy of quantitative easing, whereby the bank electronically “prints†money that it then uses to buy UK government gilts and bonds. The UK government now has this newly-created money with which to fund their deficit and pay for public services.
The UK Government owes a great deal of debt to the Bank of England, which is in turn owned 100% by the UK government. Crazy as it sounds, it’s a situation whereby the UK government essentially owes ITSELF a sizeable chunk of its own debt.
As of 6 February 2014, the Bank of England owned £375bn of the £1,380bn national debt of the United Kingdom. The entire QE program has been given over to buying UK government gilts, meaning that using the most up-to-date figures the Bank of England holds around 27.2% of UK debt.
From an independence stand point, an independent Scotland, denied its share of the Bank of England, would not be liable for debt which the UK owed to itself, resulting in the true debt figure that needs to be split post independence being far lower – £1trn instead of £1.38trn.
This would provide an independent Scotland with a debt share based on a population basis of £84.4bn. Clearly this would make independence a far more viable prospect and have far reaching effects on the finances of an independent Scotland.
The Treasury has also decided to take the accumulated interest payments on the stock of government debt the Bank of England has bought via QE and put it on the government’s books rather than the Bank of England’s. This means that the interest that the UK pays on its debts is paid to the Bank of England, who then in turn credits it back to the Treasury!!
So, Scotland paid £4.1bn in interest payments in 2011-12 on the 8.4% share of national debt allocated to us, of which 27.2% was owed to the Bank of England. This means that Scotland has paid around £1.12bn in interest payments to the UK government – essentially acting as an additional stealth tax on Scotland since we, unlike Westminster, don’t then get the money credited back.
Scotland has therefore not only subsidised the rUK by taking on-board £2.6bn of debt more than we actually ran up, but we then also paid an additional £1.12bn in interest on debt we owed ourselves. As a result of how the Union is financed, Scotland has paid interest on money it owed itself, yet when it comes to look at its accounts at a later date that money has disappeared, siphoned off into the Treasury as the UK government’s share.
And then to add insult to injury, these payments are counted as deficit and used by Unionists as proof we couldn’t afford independence.
A Yes vote, then, would deliver an “independence dividend†of over a billion pounds a year in interest alone without having to cut a single service. On top of other instant savings like £800m from the defence budget, the £50m annual contribution to running Westminster and only paying our fair share of UK debt rather than £2.6bn extra, Scotland would find itself over £5bn a year better off at the stroke of a pen.
highlands wrote:
Unemployment is lower in Scotland than RUK, but 23.5% of employees in Scotland are in the Pubilc Sector compared to 18.3% in England. How affordable is that post-independence?
Until you see that Scotland's economic position is better than you are told, you will never accept that Scotland CAN afford to do what it does. There will be arguments on both sides of the fence and I'm perfectly sure that it can be a success or a failure (I consider a mountain of debt through fiscal deficits to be a failure but others in Westminster do not), but one things for certain: I believe that a smaller, more accountable government in an independent Scotland can lead the way to a more socially acceptable form of political rule than the status quo.
highlands wrote:
it is entirely possible that BOTH RUK AND Scotland may likely be worse off with independence. I do and therefore I will vote no.
Indeed! It's also possible that Scotland will be significantly better off than it currently is. I'm sorry to say that I don't think rUK can or will be, but that's not what this is about.The older I get, the more I realise that people confuse wrinkles for wisdom
Founder member of Club FFRRV
Club Orange, Mint or Fruit
Club Walnut Sniffers
17th Feb 2014 8:51 pm
DSL Keeper of the wheelie bin
Member Since: 11 May 2006
Location: Off again! :-)
Posts: 72968
John, do I have to read all of that? Will it make sense if I skip a few words??
Tell me first of all Derek.... Do you have a vote with your highland residence or are you just adding to the mire with your southern skeptikism? If it's the former, you can speed read (and slow down where the words exceed six letters) and if it's the later, you can feck off!! The older I get, the more I realise that people confuse wrinkles for wisdom
Founder member of Club FFRRV
Club Orange, Mint or Fruit
Club Walnut Sniffers
17th Feb 2014 9:34 pm
johnny585
Member Since: 11 Nov 2011
Location: fife
Posts: 166
It would appear that your opinion is much the same as the bbc, in your opinion, biased!
I didn't read about all the subsides farmers receive from Europe and if they would continue, because I think there are a number of farmers on this forum.
17th Feb 2014 9:35 pm
DSL Keeper of the wheelie bin
Member Since: 11 May 2006
Location: Off again! :-)
Posts: 72968
John: The latter!! And you should know at my age speed reading usually results in falling asleep.
It would appear that your opinion is much the same as the bbc, in your opinion, biased!
Of course my OPINION is biased. That's what personal opinions are. However, I'm paying for the BBC to be an upstanding impartial broadaster which would normally be holding the government of the day to account. Whilst I pay a license fee, I am entitled to expect this and it's been proven to be lacking.
It's interesting to note that Westminster suggest that we could loose the BBC in an independent Scotland, yet in the same speech they praise this institution as being admired the world over which helped Aung San Suu Kyi in her quest for democracy for the Burmese people. I wasn't aware that Burma paid a licnese fee....
When it comes to farmers (traditional conservatives? - even in Fife!!), I know a number of farmers who are only really worried about EU subsidies. They automatically tend towards 'No' because they are conservative in many ways. There is enough unknown in the weather, without their subsidies being in the same league of uncertainty. 'No' is an automatic choice for a farmer without the need to look into the posibilities. I suspect that any farmer who looks for the information will find a positive case for Yes, but they don't have time to look. Besides, the ones I know are typically playing golf in a foreign country! The older I get, the more I realise that people confuse wrinkles for wisdom
Founder member of Club FFRRV
Club Orange, Mint or Fruit
Club Walnut Sniffers
17th Feb 2014 9:51 pm
countrywide
Member Since: 16 Sep 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 6019
Bearing in mind that a huge chunk of Scottish business is generated from the UK as a customer, is the GDP going to be maintained in a more open market. Much of this business is due to the special relationship, but would this still exist if it was independent ?
Banking is a huge part of the revenue, how would this work without the £ or € ?
Costs of public services will increase due to savings currently made on scaling, so you have to realise the 9.3% of public spending will change.
GDP would fall upon independence without doubt, so you can't base a plan for independence based on the current position or current costs.
Personally I don't see the need for independence, I like having Scotland as part of the UK. If I am honest we are all stronger together.
Bearing in mind that a huge chunk of Scottish business is generated from the UK as a customer, is the GDP going to be maintained in a more open market. Much of this business is due to the special relationship, but would this still exist if it was independent ?
The same applies in reverse does it not? Scotland is rUK's second largest market. This is why the 'currency union' is in the favour of both sides. Sixty percent of my business is cross border(s) - not just UK borders - but almost 100% of my purchases are from England. If we can't share in OUR currency, the losses might well be higher to the south of Gretna. I CAN buy the same stuff from the EU but I choose to purchase form my friends in the south because they use the same currency.
countrywide wrote:
Banking is a huge part of the revenue, how would this work without the £ or € ?
I'm not equiped to answer this as my designation only sounds like 'banker'
countrywide wrote:
Costs of public services will increase due to savings currently made on scaling, so you have to realise the 9.3% of public spending will change.
Potentially true but I doubt if it's that significant. At present the economy of scale is not something that can be examined in the north as we obviously don't know who is paying who for what. However, we can potentially change the sources of procurement and look to more local choices which might be naturally dismissed by a Westminster beaurocracy. The departments are already here, only the funding source will change.
countrywide wrote:
GDP would fall upon independence without doubt, so you can't base a plan for independence based on the current position or current costs.
Why would GDP drop? Can you back up this assertion please? There are many respected economists who think the reverse! If we can set business taxes without deference to Westminster, there is every posibility that GDP could rise!
countrywide wrote:
Personally I don't see the need for independence, I like having Scotland as part of the UK. If I am honest we are all stronger together.
Personally, I see the need for independence. I don't like having Scotland ruled from Westminster with an 'Empire mindset' by a bunch of public schoolboys who can't even begin to imagine how the average Scot lives, or perhaps more importantly, how he thinks. If I'm honest, only England is stronger with Scotland.
Please don't think I'm anti-English. I believe that much of my mindset could be found in Lancashire, Sunderland, Swansea, Truro or Norwich. The difference is that Scotland has always been a nation in the eyes of it's people. We are culturally different and our priorities are different.
Let me give a brief example. I was travelling north on the main (A90) trunk route between Edinburgh and Aberdeen. I saw a lone elderly woman on the southside of the dual carriageway who was parked on the hard shoulder. My first instinct was to turn round at the next available opportunity and head south to assist her. Try finding that sentiment on the M25.The older I get, the more I realise that people confuse wrinkles for wisdom
Founder member of Club FFRRV
Club Orange, Mint or Fruit
Club Walnut Sniffers
17th Feb 2014 10:26 pm
Robbie
Member Since: 05 Feb 2006
Location: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Posts: 17932
Quote:
My first instinct was to turn round at the next available opportunity... Try finding that sentiment on the M25.
Well it is a national hobby.
Quote:
SCOTLAND remains the murder capital of Britain….
Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill gave the figures a cautious welcome…
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
) 
