Support NeoGAF

[QuicheFontaine]

Tax and Spend would need to be aligned. Both would have to spend and borrow within their limits but how the Scottish government spend their money is up to them (much like it is already) so yes - why even bother? especially if they get devo max as a minimum which looks likely.

I honestly think the economic arguments are all pretty marginal though. Ultimately its down to power and people wanting to be represented. The fact of the matter is that many Scottish (and English) people don't feel represented by their government and see political power far too centralised.

Im in favour of general devolution across the country, give NI,Scotland and Wales tax and spend powers, give English authorities power over their own tax and spend. Lets get all the regions competing and specializing as they see fit. No rational government is going to give up those power though. Heck, even the public voted against it re-City Mayors. But the idea that we need to completely split up the union to get this seems strange to me.

Oh, I'm sure devo max will come after this referendum. Which is what I think most Scots would prefer to independence anyway.

 

[jimbor]

I'm pretty sure devo max will not be on the table in the event of a no vote. Where's the incentive for Westminster to give up more power to the Scots if the turkeys vote for Christmas?

 

[Walshicus]

I want Scotland to stay beause I fear, without them, the tory party will remain in power and leap further to the right. As a welshman, I feel like I have more in common with the Scottish electorate than the English one and it'd be beneficial to me (selfishly) for the union to remain as it is.

Push for more Welsh autonomy or else full independence!

 

[QuicheFontaine]

I'm pretty sure devo max will not be on the table in the event of a no vote. Where's the incentive for Westminster to give up more power to the Scots if the turkeys vote for Christmas?

I thought Labour and the Tories had already committed to it, basically in an effort to take the wind out of the independence movement's sails. As for an incentive to actually follow through with it, I'd suggest preventing another independence vote in a few years.

Even if it's a no vote, 40+% of the electorate voting yes pretty much means you have to do something. And since devo max would probably win if it was a three-way vote, that looks pretty sensible to me.

 

[blazinglord]

Perhaps. But I'd rather Labour won in England by getting their policies right than relying on Scottish votes.

Living in the real world, I would rather Labour retain some semblance of being a left-wing party rather than being held to ransom by the John Bulls of the voting public.

I hope Scotland stays because I really think Westminster will become nauseatingly unbearable and more inward looking than it already is. The Scots counterbalances the reactionary and backward strain that still infects the English populace.

England is an inherently selfish country with most people out for themselves. Democracy, for those who can be bothered to participate in it, is thinking about what can this political party do for me rather than what can this party do for the country.

If I was Scottish though, I would be voting yes to get shot of English's insidious influence.

 

[Stinkles]

But then why even bother?

If "independence" is the goal, surely they need their own currency?

Currency is a convenient medium. Dollar, euro and pound are all viable and have no specific national function. There is no need for a new or ancient currency and currency is not licensed.

 

[CyclopsRock]

Living in the real world, I would rather Labour retain some semblance of being a left-wing party rather than being held to ransom by the John Bulls of the voting public.

I hope Scotland stays because I really think Westminster will become nauseatingly unbearable and more inward looking than it already is. The Scots counterbalances the reactionary and backward strain that still infects the English populace.

England is an inherently selfish country with most people out for themselves. Democracy, for those who can be bothered to participate in it, is thinking about what can this political party do for me rather than what can this party do for the country.

If I was Scottish though, I would be voting yes to get shot of English's insidious influence.

"Infects"? " Inherent"? Until the mid 80s, the Tories were a huge force in Scottish elections. As a vote share and seat count (the latter of which was disproportionately diminished due to FPTP), the Tories either won or came second in every single GE in Scotland in the last century except for one. Even today their GE voteshare isn't awful, they just don't get (m)any seats. So whilst for our (I'm making a broad assumption about your age here! Apologies if I'm wrong!) Politically interested lives it may seem that Scotland's politics are like some other world to England, the seats in Westminster skew the perception, and it's certainly a recent (in the context of the UKs 300 year history) affair. Not something I'd refer to as being an "infection" or inherent at all.

 

[QuicheFontaine]

Currency is a convenient medium. Dollar, euro and pound are all viable and have no specific national function. There is no need for a new or ancient currency and currency is not licensed.

I don't understand what you're getting at.

Sure, independent Scotland could use the dollar if they wanted, like Panama. But that's clearly less desirable than having one's own currency that you devalue at will.

One would think that it'd be even less desirable would be to use the currency of the country you just left, and therefore be economically beholden to the very country you were trying to become independent from. That's why I say independent Scotland should be looking to bring it its own currency, but apparently that's not the plan.

 

[wetflame]

I don't understand what you're getting at.

Sure, independent Scotland could use the dollar if they wanted, like Panama. But that's clearly less desirable than having one's own currency that you devalue at will.

One would think that it'd be even less desirable would be to use the currency of the country you just left, and therefore be economically beholden to the very country you were trying to become independent from. That's why I say independent Scotland should be looking to bring it its own currency, but apparently that's not the plan.

I was under the impression it would be massively costly and unfeasable to create a new currency and then attempt to control the exchange rate, and convince people living in Scotland that they're now being paid in some other currency, and should pay 73 Scottish Bawbees for a loaf of bread when everyone would just use the pound anyway.

 

[defel]

Living in the real world, I would rather Labour retain some semblance of being a left-wing party rather than being held to ransom by the John Bulls of the voting public.

I hope Scotland stays because I really think Westminster will become nauseatingly unbearable and more inward looking than it already is. The Scots counterbalances the reactionary and backward strain that still infects the English populace.

England is an inherently selfish country with most people out for themselves. Democracy, for those who can be bothered to participate in it, is thinking about what can this political party do for me rather than what can this party do for the country.

If I was Scottish though, I would be voting yes to get shot of English's insidious influence.

What on earth...

 

[QuicheFontaine]

I was under the impression it would be massively costly and unfeasable to create a new currency and then attempt to control the exchange rate, and convince people living in Scotland that they're now being paid in some other currency, and should pay 73 Scottish Bawbees for a loaf of bread when everyone would just use the pound anyway.

Well those sound like good reasons not to vote for independence. "Everyone would just use the pound anyway" sums up the whole thing.

I like the name though!

 

[clockpunk]

Academic funding is currently pretty much on hiatus pending the results of the referendum. If it is a yes vote, you can guarantee that at least 80% of current funding will be moved down to England. And the skilled academics will follow, if they can.

Universitys will lose a lot of money and teaching talent, which will in turn lower their places in the league rankings, resulting in lower home applications and increasing institutional dependence on international students - even moreso than they currently do.

Simply put: it will be an absolute disaster for the education sector.

I for one am already looking for research positions outside of Scotland.

 

[anonymous_abc]

Academic funding is currently pretty much on hiatus pending the results of the referendum. If it is a yes vote, you can guarantee that at least 80% of current funding will be moved down to England. And the skilled academics will follow, if they can.

Universitys will lose a lot of money and teaching talent, which will in turn lower their places in the league rankings, resulting in lower home applications and increasing institutional dependence on international students - even moreso than they currently do.

Simply put: it will be an absolute disaster for the education sector.

I for one am already looking for research positions outside of Scotland.

I was under the impression that the better educated and academics are overall more in favour of independence?

 

[Lirlond]

Scotland will fund academia. Of course British funding will go to British schools. Scotland already funds more per head towards education than England. To think we'll do any different after independence is crazy

 

[kurtrussell]

Got to love the English.

You're too wee, too stupid and too poor to go alone.

Even without Oil, Scotlands GDP per capita is second only to the South East of England. While you can argue about the spending being greater or less depending on the price of Oil (in some years Scotland is a net contributor in some years not) it sort of hides the point the entire UK runs a massive deficit so Scotland (even ignoring the £3 billion out of the £5 billion we give to UK defense which isn't spend in Scotland at all so doesn't contribute to our GDP) some years runs a surplus and some years runs a deficit.

Lol wut?

The UK's total GVA in 2012 was £1,383 billion. Scotland accounted for 7.7% of this - £106 billion. If Scotland voted for independence, the UK would see a GDP per head increase of £117.

In addition, without Scotland, the UK would be healthier, no doubt as a result of losing all those battered Mars Bars. If Scotland voted for independence, the life expectancy at birth would shift from 78.7 to 79.1 for men and 79.1 to 82.9 for women - I'd imagine the aggregate increase in health we'd see from losing Scotland would result in a net UK saving for any public health service.

No not really. If it were up to me, we'll take our proportional share of UK assets and go on our way.

So given that land is an asset, and that Scotland currently sit on 32% of the UK's land, but only account for 8% of it's population, a proportional share would mean Scotland handing over land to the UK. You'd be happy with that?

 

[wetflame]

Lol wut?

The UK's total GVA in 2012 was £1,383 billion. Scotland accounted for 7.7% of this - £106 billion. If Scotland voted for independence, the UK would see a GDP per head increase of £117.

In addition, without Scotland, the UK would be healthier, no doubt as a result of losing all those battered Mars Bars. If Scotland voted for independence, the life expectancy at birth would shift from 78.7 to 79.1 for men and 79.1 to 82.9 for women - I'd imagine the aggregate increase in health we'd see from losing Scotland would result in a net UK saving for any public health service.

Are you suggesting that the NHS would stop operating in Scotland and the only hospitals/healthcare would be privately run? This is one of those things that I'm interested in, would Scotland contribute towards the NHS or would it lose the right to free healthcare?

 

[QuicheFontaine]

Got to love the English.

You're too wee, too stupid and too poor to go alone.

In addition, without Scotland, the UK would be healthier, no doubt as a result of losing all those battered Mars Bars. If Scotland voted for independence, the life expectancy at birth would shift from 78.7 to 79.1 for men and 79.1 to 82.9 for women - I'd imagine the aggregate increase in health we'd see from losing Scotland would result in a net UK saving for any public health service

I bet that's the first time you've seen "You're too fat to go alone" though!

 

[clockpunk]

Scotland will fund academia. Of course British funding will go to British schools. Scotland already funds more per head towards education than England. To think we'll do any different after independence is crazy

The amounts offered (both to individual projects and as a whole) by Scottish funding bodies is negligible compared to what is offered by British bodies, in all honesty. And if independence does come, what little money they do have to offer would have to be split even further across a wider range of fields.

One could argue that such a move would really prioritise the best research, and encourage it to be conducted in a much more efficient manner... but that isn't how things work.

And the research funding that is paid to institutions for use of their facilities subsidises a hell of a lot, which is why Scottish fees are currently able to be kept so low. Remove that, and tuition fees will increase, graduation fees will be imposed, and courses will be significantly monetized.

None of which is appealing to academics in the education sector.

I can say all of the doctorate holders I have spoken with on the issue of independence are vehemently against it. All of us are looking for opportunities in any other country, right now.

 

[kurtrussell]

Are you suggesting that the NHS would stop operating in Scotland and the only hospitals/healthcare would be privately run? This is one of those things that I'm interested in, would Scotland contribute towards the NHS or would it lose the right to free healthcare?

If it's anything like Ireland, the healthcare system would be run separately, but there would likely be an agreement that UK residents do not need their European Health Insurance Card (EHIC) to access healthcare services if they are on a temporary stay.

 

[Walshicus]

The amounts offered (both to individual projects and as a whole) by Scottish funding bodies is negligible compared to what is offered by British bodies, in all honesty. And if independence does come, what little money they do have to offer would have to be split even further across a wider range of fields.

Do you not think that when the Yes vote happens said spending would *increase* as Scotland rather than the UK has full control of Scotland's spending?

Unless you're arguing that the Scottish government would prioritise academic spending less than the Westminster government. If you're just looking at what's happening now then it's kind of a false comparison because Scotland doesn't have full control over tax and spending.

 

[CyclopsRock]

Do you not think that when the Yes vote happens said spending would *increase* as Scotland rather than the UK has full control of Scotland's spending?

Maybe the Scottish Conservatives will win the first election of the new People's Democracy of Scotland?

 

[RedShift]

Living in the real world, I would rather Labour retain some semblance of being a left-wing party rather than being held to ransom by the John Bulls of the voting public.

I hope Scotland stays because I really think Westminster will become nauseatingly unbearable and more inward looking than it already is. The Scots counterbalances the reactionary and backward strain that still infects the English populace.

England is an inherently selfish country with most people out for themselves. Democracy, for those who can be bothered to participate in it, is thinking about what can this political party do for me rather than what can this party do for the country.

If I was Scottish though, I would be voting yes to get shot of English's insidious influence.

What utter crap.

 

[clockpunk]

Do you not think that when the Yes vote happens said spending would *increase* as Scotland rather than the UK has full control of Scotland's spending?

Unless you're arguing that the Scottish government would prioritise academic spending less than the Westminster government. If you're just looking at what's happening now then it's kind of a false comparison because Scotland doesn't have full control over tax and spending.

*IF* it is a Yes vote, there is absolutely no chance that the Scottish government could even hope to match the level of funding which will be diverted down to English institution.

Prioritised medical funds would likely be kept around the same level - specifically cancer and Alzheimer's research which are currently the hot topics, but everything else will suffer - no two ways about it.

Funding has been pretty much on hiatus this past 18 months pending the referendum - believe me on this front, as I (and many of my colleagues) have been constantly frustrated by thes situation all this time. And I think you might be confusing my point as most academic funding comes from private funding bodies, not controlled by either government.

For me, this whole nonsense has been extremely inconvenient - even damaging - to my career, and the sooner it is done with, the better.

 

[Gowans]

If they went I'd want the north east and borders to go with them.

 

[jimbor]

If they went I'd want the north east and borders to go with them.

Me too, no one outside of the North east can understand a word you geordies/mackems/monkey hangers say.

 

[daviyoung]

If I was Scottish though, I would be voting yes to get shot of English's insidious influence.

What are you?

 

[CyclopsRock]

What are you?

A scouser.

 

[amchardy]

As someone whose job is very likely untenable in an independent Scotland I will be voting 'No' come referendum time.

I was born in England to an English mother and Scottish father but grew up in Scotland and very much identify as Scottish (and British). I like the idea of Britain and the multiple very distinct identities that make it up.

My gut feeling that after a time that the economic benefits reported by both the Yes and No campaigns amount to very little in the grand scheme of things.

If we do vote yes then it's going to be a messy divorce and it won't be quick or cheap. We'll effectively be a country in limbo both at home and internationally. How quickly we could get though that stage and how much it will hold us back is totally uncertain.

 

[Walshicus]

If we do vote yes then it's going to be a messy divorce and it won't be quick or cheap. We'll effectively be a country in limbo both at home and internationally. How quickly we could get though that stage and how much it will hold us back is totally uncertain.

Why? There's very little work required to actually set in motion the process. Scotland already *has* the majority of institutions it needs; the actual cost of setting up those few other agencies required will be minimal, while the cost savings are high.

Where do you work that you think you won't have a job when Scotland votes Yes?

 

[Ape Gone Insane]

Why? There's very little work required to actually set in motion the process. Scotland already *has* the majority of institutions it needs; the actual cost of setting up those few other agencies required will be minimal, while the cost savings are high.

Where do you work that you think you won't have a job when Scotland votes Yes?

I don't have a link but what I read was that Scotland would need to set up 200 bodies and agencies if they split.

 

[Walshicus]

I don't have a link but what I read was that Scotland would need to set up 200 bodies and agencies if they split.

Yeah, that was bullshit:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-27611563

"An academic has accused the Treasury of a "ludicrous" use of his research in its analysis of the impact of Scottish independence."
...
"The figure that was quoted for our research was correct, but we have never claimed that the costs of setting up any public body in a new Scotland would be £15m.

'That is really taking our figure and making it ludicrous.'"

 

[QuicheFontaine]

Yeah, that was bullshit:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-27611563

Well yeah the cost per body sounds high, but weren't we talking about the number of bodies? That article says 180, is that bullshit?

 

[Walshicus]

That article says 180, is that bullshit?

Yes.

 

[QuicheFontaine]

Yes.

Hmm, I'm having a hard time ascertaining how many they would need. Googling just brings up a load of links to news stories about that Treasury Report.

 

[amchardy]

Why? There's very little work required to actually set in motion the process. Scotland already *has* the majority of institutions it needs; the actual cost of setting up those few other agencies required will be minimal, while the cost savings are high.

Where do you work that you think you won't have a job when Scotland votes Yes?

We certainly have a lot of institutions we would need if we were to become independent but anything that's currently centralised at a UK level would need a new Scottish body (DVLA, passport office etc.) I fail to see how having duplicate central offices would save money for the likes of these. The SNP have just amalgamated all regional Police bodies in Scotland into a single 'Police Scotland' body in the interests of cost saving, yet somehow having a Scottish version of existing UK institutions won't cost any additional money according to the Yes campaign - you can't have it both ways!

Then we've got the international recognition of an Independent Scotland. I don't doubt that the vast, vast majority of countries around the world will acknowledge a democratically voted upon independent country of Scotland. However, there will inevitably be a limbo period where systems and institutions (Visas, import/export) in other countries are not fully set up for dealing with this new country. There will certainly be cases where they can simply fall back to existing rules for the UK but there will no doubt be some bureaucratic processes that will be less straight forward.

 

[Walshicus]

We certainly have a lot of institutions we would need if we were to become independent but anything that's currently centralised at a UK level would need a new Scottish body (DVLA, passport office etc.)
.

Well there is a passport office in Glasgow... There're very few bodies like that which don't already have presences in the nations (outside England).

 

[CyclopsRock]

Well there is a passport office in Glasgow... There're very few bodies like that which don't already have presences in the nations (outside England).

But having a "presence" - I mean, basically every borough will have a handful of DVLA centres, for example - is different to being able to autonomously run the system in which it's currently "only" a presence. There's "absolutely nothing" and there's "everything you need to run it", and almost all institutions will presumably fall somewhere between those two values. For the ones that are devolved already obviously they'll be either very close to or entirely in the latter, but there will be many others that are far closer to the former. I guess that's what makes calculating the cost and complexity so much harder. Plus, presumably they'll want to run them a bit differently.

Edit: "somewhere between those two values." You can tell I've been coding today.

 

[blazinglord]

"Infects"? " Inherent"? Until the mid 80s, the Tories were a huge force in Scottish elections. As a vote share and seat count (the latter of which was disproportionately diminished due to FPTP), the Tories either won or came second in every single GE in Scotland in the last century except for one. Even today their GE voteshare isn't awful, they just don't get (m)any seats. So whilst for our (I'm making a broad assumption about your age here! Apologies if I'm wrong!) Politically interested lives it may seem that Scotland's politics are like some other world to England, the seats in Westminster skew the perception, and it's certainly a recent (in the context of the UKs 300 year history) affair. Not something I'd refer to as being an "infection" or inherent at all.

I just fear of living in a Tory hegemony if Scotland leaves the union. It seems that when the boundary changes does take place, it will be harder for Labour to get a look in and we will be living like it's 1987 all over again. I really think I will say sayonara to England and live somewhere a bit more communitarian if this come to pass. Perhaps Scotland!

What on earth...

Maybe I am just jaded with society which seems to me to be so individualistic. It seems that whenever my compatriots talk about Scotland and the referendum issue, it's all: rah rah they're taking all our money to spend on benefits and fried mars bars (Barnett formula). And if that alleged grievous sin was not enough, the Scots are also apparently guilty of voting en masse on laws applicable only to England in some grand conspiracy scheme to see the English suffer (West Lothian question). It's all "me, me, me and death to the welfare state (unless I need to use it for myself)".

What are you?

English, from East Anglia with no known Scottish links in my background. What are you?

 

[daviyoung]

English, from East Anglia with no known Scottish links in my background. What are you?

British. Half Scottish, half Croatian living in Essex. England and its people are generally fantastic. Don't let a few little islanders from the South East colour your opinion of an entire population.

 

[Seanbob11]

Cue Yes voters saying how this is bullshit and will never happen

 

[Ape Gone Insane]

Rumble in the Jungle

Alistair Darling v Alex Salmond

Independence debate on STV and online from 8pm to 10pm BST.

 

[DeFiBkIlLeR]

Utterly pointless debate...both will make the same claims and counter claims they've been making for the last 2yrs.

Neither will concede anything, both sides will still think they are right and have their preconceptions reaffirmed.

Blah,blah...ZZZzzzz.

Minds have been made up, those that say they are 'Don't Knows' to the pollsters are really 'I do know, but I'm not saying'.

 

[jimbor]

Cue Yes voters saying how this is bullshit and will never happen

To be fair, since when has Clegg (or any other politician for that matter) putting their name to vague promises meant anything?

If Cameron was that much in favour of Scotland having much more power, why was he so against a devo max option on the ballot?

 

[CrashBandicoot]

Cue Yes voters saying how this is bullshit and will never happen

But they can't really promise that anyway, it'd have to get voted through parliament wouldn't it?

 

[CyclopsRock]

To be fair, since when has Clegg (or any other politician for that matter) putting their name to vague promises meant anything?

Well, it's a bit different when it's a cross-party agreement. Clegg's about-face's were a result of the realities of coalition government.

If Cameron was that much in favour of Scotland having much more power, why was he so against a devo max option on the ballot?

Because you can't have a referendum option involving an undefined variable. "Devo-max" means different things to different people.

 

[jimbor]

Because you can't have a referendum option involving an undefined variable. "Devo-max" means different things to different people.

Which could've been etched out beforehand.

 

[QuicheFontaine]

To be fair, since when has Clegg (or any other politician for that matter) putting their name to vague promises meant anything?

It was a pledge made with the best of intentions. The best of intentions.

 

[kmag]

Lol wut?

The UK's total GVA in 2012 was £1,383 billion. Scotland accounted for 7.7% of this - £106 billion. If Scotland voted for independence, the UK would see a GDP per head increase of £117.

In addition, without Scotland, the UK would be healthier, no doubt as a result of losing all those battered Mars Bars. If Scotland voted for independence, the life expectancy at birth would shift from 78.7 to 79.1 for men and 79.1 to 82.9 for women - I'd imagine the aggregate increase in health we'd see from losing Scotland would result in a net UK saving for any public health service.



So given that land is an asset, and that Scotland currently sit on 32% of the UK's land, but only account for 8% of it's population, a proportional share would mean Scotland handing over land to the UK. You'd be happy with that?

You do realise that the ONS GVA regional data excludes North Sea Oil and Gas which is allocated to the extra-regio category so your figures are well out. around 90% of the Oil and Gas revenue is geographically Scottish.

Scotland's prosperity is very similar to the UK average. Output per head is only a whisker below the UK's as shown in the chart below.[176] Outside London and the South East, Scotland is the most prosperous part of the UK. North Sea oil and gas are excluded from the chart below—and other figures in this appendix unless otherwise stated—as ONS treat North Sea oil and gas output as arising in a separate region and there is no clear way to divide it among the regions of the UK. The impact of different allocations of North Sea oil and gas to Scotland and the rest of the UK are considered throughout this report.

FIGURE 4
Output per head* excluding North Sea oil and gas 2011 (£)

*Output per head measured by Gross Value Added (GVA) per head

Source: ONS, Regional Gross Value Added (Income Approach), 12 December 2012

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201213/ldselect/ldeconaf/152/15214.htm

 

[RedShift]

If Cameron was that much in favour of Scotland having much more power, why was he so against a devo max option on the ballot?

Because a referendum with three or more options is mathematically impossible to make fair.

 

[Ikuu]

Salmond coming off very poorly so far, not going to win over the undecided by talking about aliens and driving on the other side of the road.