1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Poll: Scottish independence vote

Discussion in 'Speaker's Corner' started by Biohazard, Sep 23, 2013.

?

Scottish independence, yes or no?

  1. I'm Scottish and in favour of independence

    137 vote(s)
    10.9%
  2. I'm Scottish and against independence

    167 vote(s)
    13.3%
  3. I'm from another part of UK and in favour of Scottish independence

    273 vote(s)
    21.7%
  4. I'm from another part of UK and against Scottish independence

    682 vote(s)
    54.2%
  1. Castiel

    Capo Crimine

    Joined: Jun 26, 2010

    Posts: 63,651

    You might want to read the entire article where it gives several scenarios, not just the negative.
     
  2. Eurofighter

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Mar 20, 2014

    Posts: 1,503

    Countries should be increasingly working together, not splitting up.

    Britain and Scotland are better off together.
     
  3. Terminal_Boy

    Sgarrista

    Joined: Apr 13, 2013

    Posts: 7,660

    Location: La France

    Scotland is certainly better off being part-funded by England.
     
  4. Bear

    Capodecina

    Joined: Oct 24, 2002

    Posts: 12,453

    Location: Bucks and Edinburgh

    It's clueless BS like this that make the Scots want independence and I'm from England :rolleyes:
     
  5. xs2man

    Mobster

    Joined: Jul 21, 2008

    Posts: 4,686

    Hmmmm. See, now I am quite sure Scotland could go it alone. We have enough resources etc... However, I can't imagine we wouldn't be worse off. I mean we get a healthy share of expenditure such as research and development for Universities and other such things.

    My main worry for iScotland is the cost of borrowing. Salmonds / Sturgeons threats of defaulting on their fair share of the national debt if we don't get the pound (toys, out, pram), can't be good for our (Scottish) reputation on the money markets. Regardless of whether said in jest or not, money men are serious creatures, and they will remember such threats.

    As a result (admittedly of not just this), there is NO WAY Scotland would be able to keep the excellent credit rating the UK enjoys. So borrowing will be more expensive. Not just for governments, but businesses and private individuals.

    What that means to me? I suspect, best case scenario would be an extra couple hundred quid per month in interest on my mortgage. There was talk of an extra £500 on an average mortgage a few months ago, but that may have been exaggerated, but my mortgage is above average, hence the couple hundred quid. That is a price I am NOT willing to pay for independence (and I truly believe that to be a conservative figure). On top of the no doubt extra taxes I will no doubt be liable for as an earner of a reasonable income.

    Sure, there are too's and fro's on the independence debate. And if the world had been a different place, or my personal situation had been different, I may have voted for it. But the world is, realistically, getting smaller, and the way forward, in reality, is closer integration, not less.
     
  6. Bear

    Capodecina

    Joined: Oct 24, 2002

    Posts: 12,453

    Location: Bucks and Edinburgh

    I dont doubt an iScotland will do fine and yes it will cost more money to go it alone but it will also cost the rUk more money as a result, but that wasnt what was mentioned. England and Scotland are net contributors to the UK, so the part funded by England comment is one of the reasons (amonst others) some Scots get wound up and want independance.
     
  7. grumpysculler

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Nov 23, 2009

    Posts: 1,195

    There have been several reports from genuinely independent commentators on this. Blackrock, Citigroup, Deutsche, Moody's, S&P and so on.

    What is clear that Scotland would have a borrowing rate perhaps 1% higher than the UKs. rUK's cost of finance would also increase, but by less. If Scotland refuses a share of the UK debt, that will be treated as a default event and bump borrowing costs up even higher. Current predictions have more downside risk than upside for Scotland's credit rating over the short and medium term.

    So we can be as certain as it is possible to be, that the cost of lending for businesses and individuals will be higher in an independent Scotland. Long term, that could come down but debt levels are rather high at the moment due to low interest rates so the short term would be punishing.

    I can take an extra 1% or 2% on our mortgage as we have a nice low LTV (and could, in fact pay it off if we really really wanted). Most people would struggle.
     
  8. yonderblue

    Gangster

    Joined: Dec 18, 2002

    Posts: 220

    Location: Ecosse

    What all these reports by OBR, IFS, Blackrock, Citigroup, Deutsche, Moody's, S&P etc etc fails to mention is that independent Scotland is entitled to share of the UK Assets.

    Looking at the UK Governments own the figures available :-https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/223814/whole_of_government_accounts_year_ended_31_march_2012.pdf (page 178)
    The report which is probably a conservative and what's on the books report a total £1,268 billion of UK assets then an independent Scotland should be entitled to 8.4% (Population Share) of the assets. By this estimation, Scotland would receive £109 billion of UK assets or a second method would be to distribute assets on the basis of Scotland’s tax contribution to those assets since figures were available in 1980/81. Last year Scotland paid in 9.9% of total UK taxation. That would equal £129 billion of assets for an independent Scotland.
     
  9. GiraffePencils

    Mobster

    Joined: Feb 15, 2013

    Posts: 2,999

    Location: Edinburgh

    So, if splitting by population share, the rUK should get 91.6% of the oil revenue?
    If you're just straight splitting assets under the 'fair share' argument
     
  10. grumpysculler

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Nov 23, 2009

    Posts: 1,195

    Erm, no they don't and it doesn't really affect what their conclusions were anyway.

    The combination of assets iScotland receives doesn't have too much impact on the net financial position anyway. There is still a net debt overall.

    The latest treasury paper did cover this and suggested that any asset split would almost certainly be neutral because neither Holyrood nor Westminster could afford to look like they gave anything away. They also suggested that fixed assets be split on a geographical basis and liquid assets be split on a population share. Seems rather sensible to me.

    The whole "yarr we're going to claim 9% of everything south of Hadrian's wall" is a bit of bluff and bluster by Swinney to distract from the real issues. If you take his proposition, 90% of every public asset in Scotland would need to be given to rUK. Are we really going to hand over schools and hospitals? Hand over 90% of the economic resources Scotland has? Some folk need to come back to the land of reality. The treasury position of keeping fixed assets where they are makes rather more sense.

    My own view is that we would probably be better off accepting a smaller asset share in exchange for a smaller debt share. The less debt Scotland starts with, the better.

    Given the SNP desire to conclude negotiations before there is a general election in Scotland, I don't think there will be much scope to actually negotiate. It'll be a case of taking what they get offered or risking a unionist majority in the next parliament (which is one of several routes to a constitutional crisis).

    edit: If we gave them 90% of the holyrood building, we'd finally have it back on the original budget!
     
  11. katinacooker

    Gangster

    Joined: Aug 20, 2013

    Posts: 455

    Location: Glasgow

    Eh, the rUK probably has 90% of the hospitals anyway, all iScotland would be doing is keeping theirs
     
  12. Stretch

    Capodecina

    Joined: Feb 14, 2004

    Posts: 11,690

    Location: Peoples Republic of Histonia, Cambridge

    Have you considered applying for a job with these organisations. I'm sure they could use a man capable of highlighting such an obvious oversight.
     
  13. yonderblue

    Gangster

    Joined: Dec 18, 2002

    Posts: 220

    Location: Ecosse

    Nah most of them are corrupt just like Westminster. I see slime ball Cameron has been asking favours of Obama.
     
  14. [TW]Fox

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Oct 17, 2002

    Posts: 155,329

    The Scots want independence because clueless people with zero power spout rubbish on the internet?

    Do they also crack walnuts with sledgehammers?
     
  15. grumpysculler

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Nov 23, 2009

    Posts: 1,195

    Some do, yes. The English "don't understand us", "don't support us" and "we're different" and uninformed comment like the subsidy remarks fuels that belief.

    It was the original purpose of the caber toss :)
     
  16. xxalxx

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Oct 17, 2005

    Posts: 2,285

    Location: Perth, Australia

  17. jsmoke

    Sgarrista

    Joined: Jun 17, 2012

    Posts: 8,582

    Just met an snp man, he's, 'truely an snp man', and the first thing he says to me is how much he hates the Polish for stealing jobs yet he would never in a million years take a lower wage, maybe he is right, I doubt it.

    Extremely bitter bigoted **** though.
     
  18. Weaver

    Hitman

    Joined: Jul 9, 2008

    Posts: 722

    Location: It's Grimm up Norf


    Dear oh dear oh dear. I've seen some guff posted in this thread but this one takes the biscuit.

    You are entitled to your opinion and are also entitled to dismantle any argument that the SNP put forward but to anecdotally quote some party man completely OPPOSED to his own parties policy is rather far fetched even for the partisan observer.

    I'm no lover of the SNP it's clear but even I know that their policy is for an increase in immigration numbers. To single out Polish migrants via some fictitious SNP man in your post appears to be somewhat contrived and specificity targeted to me. Some might say deliberately so, on your part.

    It is notable that the UKIP/right-wing position across the rest of the UK has targeted Polish and Romanian migrants. However on the subject of Polish migrants. The Scots have lived with great numbers of Polish refugees/migrants since Britain and France betrayed and deserted them during the German invasion at the beginning and, indeed the annexation of their country, after the second war.

    In fact I grew up with quite a number of Polish families in my neighbourhood and have the pleasure to still call some of those that I grew up with my friends and I'm nearly 50 years old. That garbage you spouted in your post might wash with younger uninformed Scots but it wont wash with Scots of my generation and older who are fully aware of why the Polish refugees were in Scotland. So as far as I'm concerned your post is no more than a thinly veiled racist/xenophobic attack by proxy which should be treated with the contempt it deserves.

    Just so there is no mistake I am a non nationalist YES supporter.


    ------
     
  19. grumpysculler

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Nov 23, 2009

    Posts: 1,195

    Does not compute (although I generally agree with your anti-anti-Polish-rant).

    The foundation of Yes is Scottish civic nationalism and if you are inclined towards Yes then you are a nationalist.

    You might be a non-SNP nationalist, but still a nationalist.
     
  20. joeyjojo

    Soldato

    Joined: Dec 2, 2005

    Posts: 5,519

    Location: Herts

    I want to change my vote! The Scots should distance themselves from this Conservative government as quickly as possible for just one reason: their NHS hasn't yet been obliterated like it has here in England.