The Org Scottish Referendum

I care about my country and its people and especially my family. If Scotland gets independance, then the Scottish government says I will be able to apply for citizenship. So I could be a Scottish citizen, but because I live in England I can't vote.
What should have happened is those not living in Scotland should have had to apply for the right to vote. Make them fill in forms, go to the post office, and pay for certified copies of proof of elegibility, and only those who genuinely cared would have applied. They then should have stuck in the same system for non-Scottish nationals living in Scotland, but the acceptance criteria should simply have been whether they were on the voters role, no need to prove eligibility if you live in Scotland, your just checked against the list. Again only those Poles who intend to live out thier years in Scotland would have bothered.

The vote hasnt used the Scottish electoral role because it was the right way, it's used it because it was the cheap and easy way.

Voting in next Westminster election is pretty much unavoidable, but upon completing independance the seats in Westminster will be disolved. That's actually the way it should work as while Scotland is in the UK it should have a vote in Westminster.

They way it shouldn't work is Scotland using a currency where economic policy is set in Westminster, when they've removed all their MP's from Westminster, so have absolutely no powers to influence that economic policy. Thats not independance, thats bending over and taking it up the **** from Westminster each time the Bank of England takes a decision on the pound.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

I've stayed relatively quiet on this matter for quite a while, and I don't want to go into too many details, but my opinion is that for the majority, economics is the factor that decides how they vote. (And agreed with here: http://www.businessweek.com/articles...is-what-counts )

Now, economically, Scotland will be worse off for years. People may want to argue this point, but it is true. They will not automatically be in the EU, and they will be unable to arrange many of the opt-outs the UK currently benefits from.

I also see an issue with many of the banks currently in Scotland that would have to leave, and even if they stay, it will be with significantly reduced operations for the reasons set out in the article above.

The next issue is the media/politicians misquoting figures about oil reserves and revenue production. It would be very difficult for Scotland to maintain the whole state on the oil sales. ( http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidnic...omic-disaster/ )

The other issue relates to the deficit. Ignoring oil revenues, in 2012-13 the deficit in Scotland was £14 billion. Now, people can say, ah yes but we have all this oil!

The peak production year was 2008-9 with an amount of £12.4 billion. Not far off you say, but in 2012-13 the amount produced was £6.5 billion. There's a pretty hefty shortfall there.

There are so many other issues surrounding borrowing from investors as a government (giving the instability and uncertainty that would arise), which would increase borrowing costs. Also look at the lack of investment given the unknown surrounding what regulatory regime will be in practice and how strictly it will be enforced, whether Scotland could afford to bail out it's bank if needs be.

From an ideological point of view, I understand, but from an economics one, it just does not add up.

[dizzyblonde]

Originally Posted by EssexDave

They will not automatically be in the EU, and they will be unable to arrange many of the opt-outs the UK currently benefits from

This is an important factor that people just don't really understand.
Scotland won't be getting the EU to rewrite certain clauses in membership to suit them having automatic right to carry on as before. It has a lot of bearing on other countries memberships that aren't exactly clearly defined. Plus one or two that have been kept out of joining will then be attempting to get the EU to bend rules for them too. Dire consequences there in.

[pegasus]

Originally Posted by EssexDave

I've stayed relatively quiet on this matter for quite a while, and I don't want to go into too many details, but my opinion is that for the majority, economics is the factor that decides how they vote. (And agreed with here: http://www.businessweek.com/articles...is-what-counts )

Now, economically, Scotland will be worse off for years. People may want to argue this point, but it is true. They will not automatically be in the EU, and they will be unable to arrange many of the opt-outs the UK currently benefits from.

I also see an issue with many of the banks currently in Scotland that would have to leave, and even if they stay, it will be with significantly reduced operations for the reasons set out in the article above.

The next issue is the media/politicians misquoting figures about oil reserves and revenue production. It would be very difficult for Scotland to maintain the whole state on the oil sales. ( http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidnic...omic-disaster/ )

The other issue relates to the deficit. Ignoring oil revenues, in 2012-13 the deficit in Scotland was £14 billion. Now, people can say, ah yes but we have all this oil!

The peak production year was 2008-9 with an amount of £12.4 billion. Not far off you say, but in 2012-13 the amount produced was £6.5 billion. There's a pretty hefty shortfall there.

There are so many other issues surrounding borrowing from investors as a government (giving the instability and uncertainty that would arise), which would increase borrowing costs. Also look at the lack of investment given the unknown surrounding what regulatory regime will be in practice and how strictly it will be enforced, whether Scotland could afford to bail out it's bank if needs be.

From an ideological point of view, I understand, but from an economics one, it just does not add up.

Dave, why does the debt of the bank need to be repaid by the public?

Iceland, has refused to repay the debt that the national banks incurred, and carries on regardless....maybe we should take note...?

[MisterTommyH]

Are we talking about the debt of the financial collapse or the deficit of in public spending?

I thought the comments were regarding the deficit, therefore nothing to do with the banks?

[Bibio]

i'm enjoying this thread

its nice to see the views of other people.

Originally Posted by EssexDave

...The peak production year was 2008-9 with an amount of £12.4 billion. Not far off you say, but in 2012-13 the amount produced was £6.5 billion. There's a pretty hefty shortfall there...

Peak production was long before that.

Originally Posted by pegasus

Dave, why does the debt of the bank need to be repaid by the public?

Iceland, has refused to repay the debt that the national banks incurred, and carries on regardless....maybe we should take note...?

Iceland hasn't refused, it's simply refused to do it on terms dictated by foreign governments. The debts are being repaid and in time will all be repaid, the argument was over the timescale of repayment.

Originally Posted by pegasus

Dave, why does the debt of the bank need to be repaid by the public?

Iceland, has refused to repay the debt that the national banks incurred, and carries on regardless....maybe we should take note...?

Iceland allowed its national banks to fail, as in go bankrupt. The savers who put their money in these banks were covered under a guarantee scheme much the same as in we have in the UK. The receivers of the bank were then forced to sell off the assets of these banks to repay the government for the money which it paid out.

We chose a different path where by we partially nationalised the big banks at a cost of £123bn, giving them a big cash injection allowing them to continue to function as banks and saving us from having to pay out for the money for people's savings. For the UK this was a better deal given that so much of our economy is driven by the financial sector.

Try to keep in mind that we haven't given them the money for free, we took ownership of large fractions of these banks, as the economy continues to recover then we will be able to re-privatise our holding in these banks, by all accounts we are expected to make a reasonable profit from the deal. Also, the banks are paying fee's and interest which as to now has covered the interest on this debt.

[TamSV]

Originally Posted by EssexDave

I've stayed relatively quiet on this matter for quite a while, and I don't want to go into too many details, but my opinion is that for the majority, economics is the factor that decides how they vote. (And agreed with here: http://www.businessweek.com/articles...is-what-counts )

Now, economically, Scotland will be worse off for years. People may want to argue this point, but it is true. They will not automatically be in the EU, and they will be unable to arrange many of the opt-outs the UK currently benefits from.

I also see an issue with many of the banks currently in Scotland that would have to leave, and even if they stay, it will be with significantly reduced operations for the reasons set out in the article above.

The next issue is the media/politicians misquoting figures about oil reserves and revenue production. It would be very difficult for Scotland to maintain the whole state on the oil sales. ( http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidnic...omic-disaster/ )

The other issue relates to the deficit. Ignoring oil revenues, in 2012-13 the deficit in Scotland was £14 billion. Now, people can say, ah yes but we have all this oil!

The peak production year was 2008-9 with an amount of £12.4 billion. Not far off you say, but in 2012-13 the amount produced was £6.5 billion. There's a pretty hefty shortfall there.

There are so many other issues surrounding borrowing from investors as a government (giving the instability and uncertainty that would arise), which would increase borrowing costs. Also look at the lack of investment given the unknown surrounding what regulatory regime will be in practice and how strictly it will be enforced, whether Scotland could afford to bail out it's bank if needs be.

From an ideological point of view, I understand, but from an economics one, it just does not add up.

With a different set of equally reasonable assumptions you could come to an entirely different conclusion but, as it's based on assumptions, it probably wouldn't be a useful argument to have.

Which is why I think the following is wrong...

Originally Posted by EssexDave

my opinion is that for the majority, economics is the factor that decides how they vote....but from an economics one, it just does not add up.

If both of those statements were true then the polls wouldn't be so close.