To think Alex Salmond is in his own private dream world?

[SpineInABap]

Ok so Alex Salmond wants an independent Scotland, and sets out his ideas.

Then all three Westminster parties tell him - "no you can't share the pound and be independent as well, it would be too unstable. Did you see what happened in Europe when they tried to share a currency between different countries with different economic policies? And those countries were trying to become more united, and in this case the two countries would be trying to split apart!"

Then a guy from the European Union remarks that it won't be plain sailing for an Independent Scotland to join the EU, as all the other members will have to agree - and many won't as they don't want to encourage their own splinter states to start asking for independence as well.

So two fairly serious problems. And what is Alex Salmon's reaction? Basically to go "Ner ner ner, you're all being mean and nasty and you don't really mean it. I think that if we all vote yes for an independent Scotland, then you will change your mind and let us share the pound, and let us join the EU. You're bluffing, and so I'm not coming up with a plan for what would happen if Scotland voted yes and we realised that, oops no...you weren't bluffing".

How can anyone think this man does not sound a bit bonkers? I'm English, but if I was Scottish I would be very worried about voting for someone who thinks nothing of destabilising a whole economy just to make a Political point.

To me (as a non voting English person), it seems as if it's becoming more and more about point scoring between the politicians. Both sides coming out with stereotypical politician non answers and half promises, each trying to piss the other side off, forgetting that there are actual, real people who will have to live with the consequences of the outcome.

If there's a yes vote, AS gets to go down in history as the Scottish hero. But if it's no, the UK government have succeeded in dividing the population yet again. Divide and conquer.

'The Scottish Government respects the service of current personnel. We will ensure that all current service personnel will be eligible for a post in the Scottish defence forces, though they will not need to take it up'.

There is a rather naive assumption here that rUK will give the Scots ships, planes and rifles.]
One of the main arguments for Scottish independence is their treatment at the hands of the English over the years. What on earth makes AS think that following a "Yes" vote the rUK government are going to play nice. At that point Scotland will be negotiating with a foreign power from a position of weakness (5 million Vs 55 million).
Also there is no guarantee that an independent Scotland will get anywhere near the oil and gas reserves it is automatically assuming as of right.

Santana, I've seen these responses in the White Paper but my point is that they don't answer the questions. For example the idea that the EU will allow Scotland to charge some fellow EU nationals (rUK) differential tuition fees is ludicrous. If they had a shred of evidence from anyone other than themselves to back up their assertion I might take it seriously but they haven't.

I completely agree with you, JohnCusacksWife. It's terrifying.

JohnCusacksWife:

Schengen is a given. I think that Scotland would also be responsible for managing and maintaining the border on behalf of the EC.
AS has had years to think all of this through and come up with a coherent plan for independence. All he has done so far is come up with a wishlist that is unacceptable to those who he should have been talking to.

How can Schengen be "a given" when Unionists insist we won't be in the EU any more?

OldLady, so which is it? Either we're admitted to the EU and bound by Schengen or we're not admitted and we're not. Seems to me that the Yes campaign seem to be suggesting that we will be admitted to the EU but not bound by Schengen, which makes no sense.....

It makes perfect sense. Although, as has been pointed out, Scotland is not an EU member, 5 mill Scottish people are. Scotland is fully EU compliant (in a way that, eg, the former East Germany was not, when accepted without demur) and we are net contributors financially. Spain will not want to lose access to our fishing grounds... It makes sense to exclude us from Schengen, because Shengen is all about reducing and removing borders, not forcing us to make a new one.

Do you really think the EU will behave like a spiteful 5yo, when we vote yes? That's not in anyone's interests.

Spain and the other countries with sep

Spain and the other countries with separatist movements will not want to encourage them either.

It is in their interests to make an iScotland jump through all the hoopspossible. It's not 'spite'. Scotland is tiny. It's not that special.

OldLady, given their problems with the Basques I think the Spaniards would rather stick pins in their eyes than agree to a cessation state joining the EU and thereby setting a precedent. Also (as far as I know) individual people can't be members of the EU, only states.

W

Argh, damn phone. What on earth do you mean by 'net financial contributors' with reference to the EU anyway?

Hmmm. I think the Spaniards may be rather loath to lose access to the rich fishing grounds around Scotland....

Interesting article in the Spectator:
www.spectator.co.uk/features/9131482/union-in-peril/

Scotland would do well to try and get the Spanish out of its fishing grounds. Long a bone of contention in some parts of the country. Perhaps one benefit of not being an EU member.

OldLady, JohnCusack is right - it is the state that is a member of the EU. We in Scotland are only EU citizens because we are UK citizens. Once we vote for independence, we are a new state and start from scratch.

More worrying for Spain is the Catalan independence movement, which they are keen to keep a lid on: see eg here

FWIW I think that all these matters could and would be sorted out, although with UK negotiations (say 1 year?) plus then going thru the EU process, it would be at least 3-4 years. My position is, really, why would we want to?

I'm still reading this ....I still can't understand why Scotland would be better off?
I'm not an economist but to me it seems like common sense..

The joint bank account example made me think ..
It is like a couple splitting up and moving to separate houses. Their overheads will be higher - both as individuals and jointly - two sets of furniture, two trips to the shops, two sets of lights on, two lots of heating - two energy bills - which are actually really good eg of what I mean - 2 sets of standing charges...which are more or less fixed no matter how many people live in each house....

You are covering a small number of people so some things will cost less - but proportionally less?
Looking at the link to the embassies etc - it says the UK has 270 missions and iScotland will have 100. It says iScotland would have cheaper buildings etc, lower running costs so each mission would cost less...
But the fact remains that in the Uk (using 08-09 figures - cos only figures I can find for that have no of Scottish tax payers separate)
32.5 million tax payers pay for 270 missions, after rUk this would be 29.7 million tax payers. That is a million tax payers to pay for 8.3 missions- or 9 missions if rUK (assuming they retained 270 missions).

In iScotland, even with a poorer service (less missions) - with 2.8 million tax payers - a million tax payers would be paying for 36 missions! Four times as much - and that's tax money that can't be spent on something else (assuming my sums and thinking are right - I stand to be corrected)

Scotland has the income from oil reserves - for now... nobody thinks they are going to last indefinitely (or do they?)
Some of the money generated now would have to be being used to find an alternative way of generating income for the future... (as well covering massive set up costs for a new country - like buying those new missions).
The only ways of upping the income long term is increasing tax revenue (and how many people - unless they have no choice - will stay around to work here for that? If they can move a couple of hundred miles south and be much better off ? (assuming dual citizenship) Especially people near the border - just move across the road...

Or to get more people to share the burden - increase the (tax paying) population size - they would have to create somewhere for those people to live - and work for them (and lots of jobs and tax payers gone from the oil industry too).

Scotland as somewhere to live (and pay taxes) would lose a lot of its appeal if they pushed that too far...as well as damaging the tourist industry. People come to visit the 'remote' Scottish Highlands etc and see beautiful landscapes .... they don't climb Ben Nevis to view the housing estates.... (as well as the suitability for housing in lots of areas - drainage, transport links etc - the main reason while they are still unspoilt)

Or create another way of generating income using your natural resources - maybe mass wind farms?...but isn't it only government subsidies that make those cost effective? So maybe scratch that...

And also you would need to reduce your spending - so reduce 'benefits' - all payouts to people who can't/don't work..(just as I will be a pensioner!), NHS, education (free prescriptions, tuition fees). And it isn't just income tax - things like VAT all depend on money being available to be spent - industry depends on people having money to buy things ...local economies depend on local spending...

I think someone up thread (or at least I've read somewhere looking into this) said they didn't care that tax payers were going to have to pay more...it didn't effect them. But it would -if you don't have that many tax payers there is only so much money you can get out of them...
At the end of the day you can't really spend money you haven't got forever- unless you can persuade someone to keep lending it to you and they won't if they don't think you can ever pay it off or rather pay your interest - look at what has happened to Greece ...maybe not quite the same as someone coming round with a baseball bat..but not far off... and that has effected the non-tax payers probably more than the tax payers...

When the oil has gone the whole of the UK will suffer - but there are more people and therefore more tax payers to bear the brunt...

So how is my thinking wrong?

unlucky, I think your thinking is reasonable, and all those questions are important.

I'm no economist either, but am now off to read around the latest reporting on the oil and gas industry (#funsunday)

oh, and going back to the EU question, this gives Judge David Edward's analysis of the position we could be in.

Interesting that, on brief skim read, there is simply no policy for a new nation breaking off from an existing EU member state.

People come to visit the 'remote' Scottish Highlands etc and see beautiful landscapes .... they don't climb Ben Nevis to view the housing estates.... (as well as the suitability for housing in lots of areas - drainage, transport links etc - the main reason while they are still unspoilt)

And they certainly hate the wind farms and ugly electricity pylons I see going up in increasing numbers when I'm in the Highlands, three or four times a year.

YANBU. I do not have time to read the whole thread but based on the few pages I have read, I just want to say:

to the poster who doesn't think she has the moral right to vote as an English person living in Scotland: of course you should vote to maintain the status quo, you are voting in the place of all the disenfranchised Scottish-born people now living in other parts of the UK, who have no vote in whether their birthplace becomes a 'foreign country'.

It is bad enough that I as someone with an English accent would have to think twice about getting involved with 'Better Together' campaigns lest I bolster the 'Yes Vote'...but quite another to think you should not turn out to preserve the status quo.

The Election turnout figure that gave the SNP their majority was way lower than that of UK General Elections and I can only hope that common sense will prevail in September in full knowledge that the ConDems are not here to stay so being anti-Tory is a dumb reason to support all the uncertainties independence offers.

My money is in a UK Bank branch in England...what about yours?
Devolution was never supposed to be about severing the Union but about local accountability, and shame on whoever (Cameron?) went along with this uncertain state of affairs.

Countries with low populations (e.g. New Zealand - Ireland - Scotland?) have low tax-takes by necessity which means in reality whatever the Government's stance (Left/Right), there is never enough in the coffer for essentials of the Welfare state, let alone more.

In NZ (despite oil/gas wealth), there are fees for every visit to a GP(bar the youngest children) for example and all state schools have sliding scales of fees based on the wealth of the locality. Parents have to provide all pens, exercise books etc, there is no subsidised dentistry for adults etc etc , food banks the norm there for those on benefits.....be very careful Scotland....you will have more effective power with a Labour Government in Westminster than an Independent Scotland with limited taxation to play with.

Oh, windfarms is a whole other monumental thread

I would probably be standing shoulder to shoulder with the most rabid Nat to stop more of them in the most beautiful wild places.

Back to Spanish fishing. I've spent the morning trawling () for figures and they are sparse. I'd like to see proof of this sort of claim: I think the Spaniards may be rather loath to lose access to the rich fishing grounds around Scotland.... without reference to wingsoverscotland, bellacaladonia etc.

Chart 3.19 (Landings into the UK by foreign vessels by vessel nationality: 2012) in this document on UK fish statistics in 2012. It shows that Spanish landings into the UK accounts for 3,859 tonnes. Ireland, France, Belgium, Norway and Sweden have considerably larger landings.

On page 115, you can see that in 2011, Spain caught 987 thousand tonnes, the highest of any country in the European Union.

Put these two together and it doesn't look like Spanish fishing would be really affected by blocking an iScotland from the EU.

Any other facts and figures out there?

But the first figure you show is Spanish landings into the UK, whereas presumably most of the Spanish catch is landed in Spain?

Ive been trawling too and it's remarkably hard to find the data.

So you made a claim based on nothing?

Wow.

My point was that there is such a huge difference in the two numbers.

I looked at the Spanish governments own figures tonight. In 2011, they caught in 987 thousand tonnes of fish, as I previously said. According to this (page 2, 'CAPTURAS DE BUQUES ESPAÑOLES. TOTALES DE PESO VIVO'), about 355 tonnes of fish was caught in the North East Atlantic zone, but this is truly huge, if you look at the map of it here.

Anyway. If fishing in Scottish waters was sooooo important to the Spanish economy, would the facts and figures of it not be documented somewhere?