to wonder how Scotland's decision will affect england?

[LEMmingaround]

Just that really? If they do go their ownway how will it affect england?

Also will it open a can of worms with wales and northern Ireland?

How else could they have been afforded? Now, we're in a time of massive "austerity", where thousands of people - elderly, disabled - have died, thousands more will because Tory cuts have only just started, and Labour promise to be even harder on benefits recipients. But they've agreed to pay £130 billion fucking quid for WMD we'll never use, and which make us a target for terrorists?

It's a lot easier to say that the oil money helped ride the country over during a period of economic adjustment in the 1980s. Perhaps some of it paid for the Falklands.

Perhaps it did. But that's 30 years (and more) ago. Why did every gvt since 1974 lie about Scotland's oil wealth? Why are they lying now?

Ultimately, if we are the economic drag, the subsidy junkies they say we are, why are they so mad keen to keep us?

The trouble is that Scottish local government has long been run on the basis if institutionalised incompetence and corruption, jobs for the boys and poor practice and these are the people who are going into national government.

Its all very well saying an independent Scotland would be some magical fairyland where this would all go away, but anyone decent and honest from outwith that sector of society would just be made mincemeat of - or would have to accept it to get on, like the SNP do. There are some really nasty local councillors about, who you wouldn't want to cross. Or who have
relatives and pals you wouldn't want to cross.

Notions about this supposedly fairer and more equal society i find very fake, when Scotland has no political will to sort out the mess its local councils are. Poverty and socialism are simply used as an excuse for corrupt and incompetent practices, as us fuelling hatred of Westminster.

I'm inclined to agree with chelsyhandy. I see absolutely no evidence to support the assertion that Scotland would be aby better from a political scandal and corruption perspective.

Where is the evidence of £130bn on trident - it costs c.£2bn a year, around 1.5% of benefits spending.
Also who are the thousands who have died due to austerity?

www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/trident-fury-scots-hit-public-3795645

union-news.co.uk/2014/02/unions-join-anti-atos-demos-today-10600-people-die-declared-fit-work/

trident update with some figures

"Successor" - the replacement subs - estimated at £11-£14 billion and due in 2028. Decision in renewing warheads due 2019. Missiles lifespan being extended. Estimated in service costs are 5-6% of the defence budget annually

As far as i can tell, the source of the £130billion estimate is this report by greenpeace. It's actually a report on both trident and the new aircraft carriers, and the figures is a lifetime cost for both - with £97billion being greenpeace's estimate of how much trident will cost over the lifespan of the replacement.

I don't think it will make much difference either way.

With independence Scotland would probably get to use the pound, but in return for a whole load of concessions that would leave it in a pretty similar situation to the situation it is in now.

With a NO vote there would still be increased devolution.

Whatever happens there will be new signs, government departments, committees and letterheads.

With a NO vote there would still be increased devolution.

Now that I doubt very much.

I think it's artificial to pick an item of government spending one doesn't like, and say that the oil money was squanderered on it. That's not the way government spending works in any country, and that would have been so for iScotland too, had it (say) become independent in the 1970s.

The better point is the lies about the oil wealth. Last year I read Seasons in the Sun, about Britain in the 1970s. When North Sea oil was discovered, Scots certainly knew about it, hence the rise in SNP support. The British government were certainly worried about this, and with plenty of reason - there were many who thought the UK would break up in the 1970s. If I remember correctly, there were talks between Callaghan's government and the SNP, but the SNP's price was an independence referendum and Labour declined it. It is quite clear that there was plenty of information about the UK's oil wealth and Scots new it.

I will add that at the time Scotland was getting the government it chose. The divergance happened later.

As for now, the claim anyone is lying about Scotland's oil wealth is absurd. The figures have been endlessly gone over. In terms of projected income, proven reserves and so on, there is plenty of legitimate scope for disagreement.

I think it's artificial to pick an item of government spending one doesn't like, and say that the oil money was squanderered on it. That's not the way government spending works in any country, and that would have been so for iScotland too, had it (say) become independent in the 1970s.

I agree. Government spending priorities and their wide ranging financial impacts are way too complex to drill down to individual aspects of spending.

One of the independence issues is whether the citizens of Scotland have different spending priorities to rUK, and if they do whether these different priorities would be better in an iScotland.

Now if we had been independent in the 70s we really COULD have been like norway with an oil fund etc. As it is, it was spunked away, nothing to show for it. Ah well.

Can I ask a question about more devolution to those who understand this more than me? What would be the point of tax raising powers without independence? If we paid higher taxes, would that money not just flow to WM for them to give us back our budget (not based on tax paid in?) or does it mean that the scottish govt get to keep the extra tax money raised?

Under the Scotland Act, there's a new tax raising power coming which allows income tax to be varied. There are some FAQs <a class="break-all" href="http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140603114437/www.hmrc.gov.uk/news/scotact2012-faqs.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">here but, in essence, any extra raised is collected by HMRC (so you don't have two tax men, one's enough ta!) but the money goes to a scottish fund.

I'd expect any other powers will work the same way

oldlady

I think the better question is whether iScotland's spending priorities are likely to diverge over the long term. After all, separation is permanent. Clearly, impetus for left-wing policies has translated better into votes in Scotland than England (if taken as a whole). However, this has only been the case since the 1980s, and while 30 years is a long time, it's not as long as 300 years.

wanksock

Scotland was not in the same position as Norway in the 1970s. It had a large and ailing heavy industry sector. I reckon had Scotland become independent then, a lot of money would have been spent propping up the likes of UCS. There was plenty of impetus for propping up up these industries. It might have been spent on raising every tenement in Glasgow to the ground and replacing them with high rise schemes. We just don't know.

I'm not aware of the details of the present proposals, but I understand that in 1999, Holyrood was given the power to vary the rate of income tax levied by Westminster, with only Scotland taking the effect of the variance. For example, had Holyrood decided to increase the rate by 2p in the pound, the extra 2p raised would have been spent in Scotland. Similarly, had Holyrood lowered taxes by 2p, the shortfall would have affected Scotland only.

Possibly as a matter of administration, tax raised by Holyrood would go to the UK exchequer, but then get allocated as a block straight back to Scotland.

OK thank you for explaining, the extra money if we pay more tax in scotland will be useful when our budget gets cut. Is it likely that barnett formula will be scrapped?

www.ft.com/cms/s/0/8ff0a24a-1e3e-11e4-bb68-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3AD6hfo2R

UK parties outline 'devo max' proposals.

Without independence the UK parties are looking for Scottish votes in 2015.

I can't find anything which I would class as a good source that says Barnett will be getting scrapped. There's some commentary that's either on Yes campaign sites, or press reports based on comments from Yes campaign sources IYSWIM?

There are a few English MPs agitating about it but there always have been. Of course it's possible - but I can't find anything reliable that says it's happening.

uk.reuters.com/article/2014/05/08/uk-norway-economy-insight-idUKKBN0DO07520140508

Norway's oil fund is not a brilliant guarantee of their future, although obviously price volatility will play a big part in how well it lasts. And of course we don't have a time machine in which to go back and establish an oil fund in the 1970s. If, as Statistically points out, the presumably difficult at the time decision had been taken to invest significantly, rather than spending.

oldlady the actual report is here , it is not a government report but a thinktank report. The cost is over 50 years and the decision has not been taken.

here are some facts about the deaths and the government figures are that 10,600 peoples benefits stopped within 6 weeks of thier death - the majority because they died and then the benefits stopped. There is no indication taht any of them had been declared 'fit for work' prior to thier death.

It is not difficult to read around the news a little bit.

Carol I think the £130bn claim is from greenpeace as it's been around for a while. It's actually a huge exaggeration (based on that report) to attribute it all to Trident as even the Greenpeace report (likely to be exaggerated!) puts the Trident figure at £97bn over the lifetime.

And, of course, we all know that Norway only started it's oil fund in 1990, it has a larger amount of oil and gas than Scotland and has a smaller population.

I do find the Norway example of being the role model for independence a bit puzzling. Yes they have oil wealth but even so, they still have high VAT rates of 25% (standard rate) and 15% VAT on food (compared to the UK 20% (standard rate) and 0% on food). That's at least an extra £60 a month in tax if you spend £100 a week in the supermarket, and VAT hits the poorest people the most.

Income tax personal allowance is about £4.5K then you pay income tax at 28% plus 7.8% NI. That is a lot more than the UK currently. They do transfer the personal allowance for married people if one is a low earner, but that still is only £9K for the couple, which is less that the UK's personal allowance of about £10K for any individual (in theory £20K per couple). The cost of living is expensive there (about £8 to £10 a pint).

Would an independent Scotland be prepared for such a hike in taxation on VAT and income tax in order to achieve a more Norwegian social model? Scotland's oil doesn't match Norway's and Norway still has high taxation and cost of living to achieve the welfare levels it offers.

Clearly the Norway tax position won't sway people to vote yes or no, but I don't think it is particularly well known just how high the tax burden is there, in spite of being an oil rich country.

I always wondered why Norway is held up as such a beacon. I think it's pretty much due to oil and a perceived high standard of living. A few years ago it was Ireland that we were going to replicate - lots of claims of low corporation tax and attracting big businesses. Once the recession hit and the celtic tiger started to look more like a kitten Ireland stopped being mentioned.