[kelvin]

In the 70s, I spent seven years of my childhood living within a stone's throw of Wallace Monument. At school I was taught Scottish history, from the Bonnie Prince to Culloden and Bannockburn.

I'd like the Scots to vote for independence and all the uncertainty that that entails. If I was a Scot, it's what I'd vote for. I grew up in the shadow of a monument that symbolizes the past struggle for independence, Mel Gibson cashed in on that and I'm actually quite shocked that the polls suggest it's fairly close. As an Englishman, it matters not a jot to me whether they choose to stay or go. I feel more European as every year passes anyway, the Scots will always be cousins of one sort of another. Let's get independence over and done with. Full independence that is, no half hearted measures. Own fiscal control, own currency, own passport for that matter. So what if it's chaos for while? If it costs a fortune? We've at least not had a war like many have had in previous years over the same issue. Eventually it will settle down.

[i.munro]

Looking at an article in the Independent   http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/scotland-independence-vote-everything-you-ever-wanted-to-know-about-life-after-this-weeks-result-9731654.html
which seems fairly unhysterical  but contains this: 

"Proportionately, Scotland’s public finances would be in just as bad a state as the UK’s. But the outlook for Scottish spending and revenue is worse than for the rest of the UK."

The first sentence makes perfect sense but does anyone know where the second is coming from. Given that earlier the same article says "Public spending per person is higher in Scotland than in England ... but that is, roughly, offset by the tax revenue from North Sea oil that would be attributable to Scotland if it were divided up..."

Is this just  to do with an ageing population ?

[Sloper]

There are definitely massive macro fiscal questions to be asked, but I imagine that many of them have relatively simple answers; for example selling bonds, in London (as Argentina sold their bonds from New york) will stabilise the rates and I think there's a good prospect of the closer relationship between tax revenue and spending will lead to a more conservative approach than Labour might employ from Westminster.

[tomtom]

Some interesting u turns in the media if you dig a little deeper. The billions leaving the UK because of the yes risk are down to impending rising interest rates according to Peston. Meanwhile the French are dealing with their own capital flight http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/14/french-rich-belgium-holdings-tax

Working in science - it's always easier for people to say what's not going to work and to criticise plans, than to show that future plans or ideas will work.

So it's a little sad to see the same line being taken with the media in general... I've said it before but I think if there's a yes vote most of the issues will be ironed out and things won't be half as bad as some are saying.

On another note - a yes result is presently excellent odds compared to the no... Partly because the bookies have taken too much on no and stand to lose a packet if it's a no. Get on it folks.

[Jaspersharpe]

"according to Peston"

*immediately thinks the opposite is probably correct*

[stone]

This link is something describing what it would take to get the euro currency union to work OK :
http://www.euractiv.com/sections/euro-finance/saving-broken-euro-303223

Basically it boils down to making the whole eurozone one unified country. Basically no independence for any of the constituent countries.

[Pantontino]

An alternative view (to some of the outright doom and gloom stuff) from another nobel prize winning economist:

http://www.scotsman.com/news/joseph-stiglitz-independence-has-costs-and-benefits-1-3541038

[stone]

 

An alternative view (to some of the outright doom and gloom stuff) from another nobel prize winning economist:

http://www.scotsman.com/news/joseph-stiglitz-independence-has-costs-and-benefits-1-3541038

Isn't it fair to say that the doom and gloom is basically about the currency union side of things and not about independence as such? Obviously countries as small as Scotland, such as Singapore and NewZealand, prosper very well with their own currencies. They are ex-British colonies who show how independence from the UK should be done.

What seems weird to me is that in your link Joseph Stiglitz is so relaxed about having a half baked currency union (we'll sort it out later somehow) and yet in my link he lays out the pre-requisits for rescuing the euro fiasco as being:

A real banking union, with common supervision, common deposit insurance, and common resolution; without this, money will continue to flow from the weakest countries to the strongest.
    Some form of debt mutualization, such as Eurobonds: with Europe’s debt/GDP ratio lower than that of the US, the Eurozone could borrow at negative real interest rates, as the US does.
    Industrial policies to enable the laggard countries to catch up. Current strictures bar such policies as unacceptable interventions in free markets.
    A central bank that focuses not only on inflation, but also on growth, employment, and financial stability.
    Replacing anti-growth austerity policies with pro-growth policies focusing on investments in people, technology, and infrastructure.
    A solidarity fund for stabilization—just as there has been a solidarity fund to help new entrants into the EU.

http://www.euractiv.com/sections/euro-finance/saving-broken-euro-303223

Is that not saying that a currency union can only work when there is full fiscal, banking and political union? Basically saying that countries in a currency union need to be tied at the hip just as closely as Scotland and England are now?

[Falling Down]

Jasper raised an interesting question earlier about all the other stuff that's not being debated because the currency issues are easier to grasp.

- The BBC.  Salmond has promised a SBC of course, but, who's going to pay for the News correspondents in Beijing, Riyadh and Washington?  Setting up an entire new publicly funded national media enterprise isn't going to be easy.  If he wants an entirely separate Scotland by March 2016 then there's going to be lots of pissed off Scots who can't watch Eastenders, Question Time and Living with Dinosaurs unless they cough up for a Sky package.

- Armed Forces.  The Faslane lease is going to continue for another ten years but then move to Plymouth if the Yes vote is successful (probably sooner given the risk of having Britains Nuclear Fleet under the control of another country and all the additional burden that would entail - Surgical strikes on IS anyone?) Nobody actually likes Nuclear Weapons of course, but I'm sure the residents of Helensburgh might be worried about the future.  I see that the No vote polls higher in the over 60's in many of the surveys.  Folk who remember the Cold War will be thinking about having a much reduced armed force... Of course Realpolitik means that Scotland will always be defended but the knock-on effects of a separate Navy, Army and Air Force shouldn't be underestimated, especially in terms of jobs and ancillary industry.  Also, I'm not sure that a Scottish Armed Forces would have the same attraction for new recruits that the combined Armed Forces have at present.  Pete? Matt?

That's just two for starters... Any more?

[tomtom]

sBc would just but into itv/sky/bbc in the same way C4 news does (itv subsid). They'd just buy most program's and make the rest. BBC commissions most of its stuff from production companies now anyway...

Armed forces?? Well it wouldn't happen overnight.. But why not have Scottish forces - with a ten year fade across from UK forces - in line with a ten year phase out of Faslane etc...

Hope they win - it's much easier for people to say why something won't work than why it will.

I bet most Labour MP's secretly wish them yes... It must appeal to the revolutionary in them - except it's being battered down by the party line.

To the barricades comrades! Fuck the status quo.

[tomtom]

(Of course it's not my pension on the line etc..)

[Falling Down]

But the BBC gets its money to pay for productions from the license fee.  Surely the SBC would have to either pay for very expensive BBC programmes via BBC Worldwide (ask friends and family in Australia, Europe, the US and Asia how many BBC productions they get to see) or fund it's own productions via a local license fee from a population of 5.9m people.

Armed Forces from a population of 6m and an increasingly mobile young group? Good luck with that...

>It's much easier for people to say why something won't work than why it will.

Not at all, which is why the No/Better Together argument is harder as it's rooted in realism, detail and genuine difficulties unlike the rather dreamy, idealistic Yes (it'll all work out fine) argument is much much easier to propagate.

[Oldmanmatt]

sBc would just but into itv/sky/bbc in the same way C4 news does (itv subsid). They'd just buy most program's and make the rest. BBC commissions most of its stuff from production companies now anyway...

Armed forces?? Well it wouldn't happen overnight.. But why not have Scottish forces - with a ten year fade across from UK forces - in line with a ten year phase out of Faslane etc...

Hope they win - it's much easier for people to say why something won't work than why it will.

I bet most Labour MP's secretly wish them yes... It must appeal to the revolutionary in them - except it's being battered down by the party line.

To the barricades comrades! Fuck the status quo.

Ten year fade across?

Do you think Scots will continue to be allowed to serve in the forces in the event of independence?

Even if they are not kicked out summarily, as foreign nationals; I suspect they will be sidelined and surreptitiously removed from "sensitive" positions. Promotion will stall.

And pensions? Will we continue to honour them?

I know many of my still serving friends are more than a little worried.

There is provision for foreign nationals within the forces and I'm guessing that Scotland will remain in the commonwealth, but business as usual seems far fetched...

[i.munro]

I would point out that, if those are the pre-requisites for a currency union, Scotland is, at most,  going to get the first 2 even if it remains in the current political union(at least as long as the Home Counties insist on voting Tory).

What seems weird to me is that in your link Joseph Stiglitz is so relaxed about having a half baked currency union (we'll sort it out later somehow) and yet in my link he lays out the pre-requisits for rescuing the euro fiasco as being:

A real banking union, with common supervision, common deposit insurance, and common resolution; without this, money will continue to flow from the weakest countries to the strongest.
    Some form of debt mutualization, such as Eurobonds: with Europe’s debt/GDP ratio lower than that of the US, the Eurozone could borrow at negative real interest rates, as the US does.
    Industrial policies to enable the laggard countries to catch up. Current strictures bar such policies as unacceptable interventions in free markets.
    A central bank that focuses not only on inflation, but also on growth, employment, and financial stability.
    Replacing anti-growth austerity policies with pro-growth policies focusing on investments in people, technology, and infrastructure.
    A solidarity fund for stabilization—just as there has been a solidarity fund to help new entrants into the EU.

http://www.euractiv.com/sections/euro-finance/saving-broken-euro-303223

Is that not saying that a currency union can only work when there is full fiscal, banking and political union? Basically saying that countries in a currency union need to be tied at the hip just as closely as Scotland and England are now?

[Fultonius]

Is that not saying that a currency union can only work when there is full fiscal, banking and political union? Basically saying that countries in a currency union need to be tied at the hip just as closely as Scotland and England are now?

What about looking at examples that do work - Germany and the Netherlands. Both countries have the same currency, are not fiscally integrated and you could argue that Germany holds the position of central bank (since it's the largest shareholder). A lot of trade happens between the two countries and, wait for it, both economies are doing well, unemployment is similar.

I'm still massively baffled by the currency issue. The more I read the less clear it gets. When you have a panel of 6 "world leading economics experts" all disagreeing with each other, who do you believe??  http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/e635505a-328f-11e4-a5a2-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3CpPW56UO

[Jaspersharpe]

What you should probably believe from the facts (rather than tomtom's "screw it and let God sort it out" idea) is that at best there will be very little point in Scotland becoming an independent country and at worst that it will be a massive fuck up of monumental proportions.

I've no axe to grind on this despite what some people may have read into what I've posted on here. I doubt it'll affect my life much at all, so why should I care?

I do actually care because I like Scotland and I like Britain and I know that the whole idea of "sticking it to the man" in this case is pure folly. People needed to do that with the AV vote as that could actually have made a step in the right direction to proper democracy in the UK. But without a nationalistic banner to wave real change was doomed from the start.

The best Scotland could get from a Yes vote is swapping one set of entrenched politicians for another. You really think they're all going to be stand up guys who only have the people's best interests at heart? Good luck with that.

This is of course completely aside from the actual mechanics of it which stone and FD have pointed out far more eloquently than I could. But how can educated people ignore such obvious facts?

I'm not surprised that the taxi drivers are pro Yes, I'm surprised that anyone who cares to dig deeper could even consider voting that way. In some ways it's a massive credit to Scotland that a huge majority have not actually been swayed by the pie in the sky rhetoric and Salmond isn't already celebrating victory.

tomtom, your idealism is almost impressive but as you say, it's easy to be idealistic when I'm alright Jack/Jock.

[Fultonius]

What you should probably believe from the facts (rather than tomtom's "screw it and let God sort it out" idea) is that at best there will be very little point in Scotland becoming an independent country and at worst that it will be a massive fuck up of monumental proportions.

I can see that you view it through almost purely "economic" eyes. I'm not convinced that many people are considering voting yes because they think Scotland is going to become some super-rich, completely fair and amazing place.

The best Scotland could get from a Yes vote is swapping one set of entrenched politicians for another. You really think they're all going to be stand up guys who only have the people's best interests at heart? Good luck with that.

No, of course they're not going to all be a bunch of "stand up guys" - I don't like Salmond, not a lot of people do. But, and this is where I think it's important - the politicians in Scotland have, on the whole, worked for a living before becoming politicians. Fuck, even the Scottish Tory MP had a job! they are also more approachable - my dad (who is nobody) has had regular discussion with John Swinney on various matters. I do genuinely think this is an opportunity to get people more engaged with politics. It's also an opportunity to totally re-write the political structure - party allegiances, manifestos etc.

I can accept it might get worse before it gets better, but at least we have the hope of saving the NHS and giving our youngsters a good education without a lifetime of debt, and no more wars, and a representative government.

I don't see how an educated person cannot see the potential?

[tomtom]

A good post J -

It would be interesting to re-run the PR referendum say next year.. I think that people are probably more disenfranchised with Westminster now than back then - and the IndyRef has massively raised the profile of a whole host of issues and points about our political system and geographical inequalities in power/wealth/governance.

There are a few (largely Grauniad based) articles/commentaries about how this will 'change politics across the UK forever - whatever the result' etc... I hope/wish this were true - but I suspect fuck all will happen.

I'm beginning to agree more and more with how Russel Brand waxes about these things - despite the fact he's West Ham supporter and they nicked an equaliser tonight....

I guess part of me still hopes/believes that its possible for our system to change in some way - for people to vote and make real changes to how they are governed - rather than just blindly follow the focus group driven mediocracy of the faceless wankers of our political career elite that we have in power at the moment. I had a chat with Alan Johnson in the pub last week - nice bloke - shame there aren't many more like him about in politics any more... As I said in my previous post - I wonder how many Labour MP's secretly wish yes (comrades!)

Anyway - I need to empty the cat litter tray now (which seems somehow appropriate) then go to bed...

[Jaspersharpe]

Fultonius - There are plenty of decent MPs who interact well with their constituents in England, always have been, it doesn't mean that anything important changes.

As for the latter points, seeing things through "economic eyes" is called reality and none of those ideals can actually happen if you can't pay for them. Which has been all I've been trying to say on this from the start.

I'd like to make tuition fees free, renationalise the rail industry, remove the private sector from the NHS and education by completely reforming both etc. I don't have a spare trillion quid though so I'm not suggesting it's possible.

All I can see from "Yes" is idealistic dreams with zero plan for implementation on even the basic stuff.

[Jaspersharpe]

tomtom - I feel your cat litter tray pain.

[miso soup]

https://www.facebook.com/notes/alan-gilmour-mcwhan/a-funny-thing-happened-on-the-way-to-damascus/10153168255997571

(No idea who this guy is but thought this was a good post.)

[Stu Littlefair]

I can accept it might get worse before it gets better, but at least we have the hope of saving the NHS

Why does this keep coming up? Control of the NHS is entirely devolved and has been for years. If you need to save the NHS, it's from Salmond.

As for the rest of the post, if you think that independence will bring no more wars ever and free higher education for all, it sounds like you're voting for Scotland to be independent from the harsh realities of life.

It's this kind of rose-tinted independence position that makes me sad - I'm all for the Scots voting to control their own destiny if that's what they want, but I think the vast majority have been sold a lie, and are voting for some unrealistic utopia which will never come.

[Fultonius]

I don't mean "not bring involved in wars" I just mean not being complicit in illegal invasions and "regime changes".

Why is free university education so unthinkable? Countries always benefit long term from a well educated populace. Scotland is committed to provide this, even if it costs us. 

[Fultonius]

And yes,  I know the NHS is devolved or it would be on its death's bed like the English NHS seems to be now. We still are forced to suffer from deep public spending cuts from Westminster.

[Stewart]

I can accept it might get worse before it gets better, but at least we have the hope of saving the NHS

Why does this keep coming up? Control of the NHS is entirely devolved and has been for years. If you need to save the NHS, it's from Salmond.

The argument is this is all related to the Barnett formula. The UK government chose not to implement the recommended pay increase in full for NHS nurses in England. By not spending this money or spending it on something that is considered a benefit to the UK as a whole (and is therefore not linked in to the Barnett equation eg London Olympics, HS2) the budget allocation given to Scotland essentially decreases. As the Scottish gov implemented the nurses pay rise in full that money had to be taken at cost to something else. This is not sustainable as NHS England becomes more privately funded.