Indyref 6

[StatisticallyChallenged]

Welcome to indyref 6

Spidergirl8 asked close to end of last thread:

What impact would independence have on fiscal policy and economic stability
What impact would the ageing population have on the future
Is the predicted future a positive one, based on fact

If the bite goes no, what has actually been achieved? Does that not just put Scotland on the back foot?

Let's try and give not too biased answers please!

Here's my post, I hope I haven't been too biased (I've tried to mention when it's my opinion in answers, and not fact). :)

What impact would independence have on fiscal policy and economic stability - I'm not an expert or extremely knowledgeable in this fields, but have been reading what I can. I think the following quote sums it up:

"...uncertainties over both future oil and gas revenues and over the continuation of the existing Barnett system make it difficult to predict with any great certainty whether Scotland would see a longer-term net fiscal gain or loss post-independence."

I don't think either side can say with certainty. Although I don't believe the economy would crash post-independence. This is a good, fairly balanced article from the Financial Times:

FT article

What impact would the ageing population have on the future
Is the predicted future a positive one, based on fact - Again, no-one can say for sure. Generally, Yes supporters will tell you the future will be better post-independence, and generally No voters will tell you it would be awful.

Although many seem to be planning to leave Scotland in the event of a Yes vote, there are equal amounts, like myself and DP, who will be moving abroad in the event of a No vote. Both could contribute to the problem of an ageing population.

My personal view is that a future involving Scotland being governed by its own citizens, and not including the possibility of a future Conservative/UKIP coalition, for example, is a good one. It can't be denied that the majority of the UK has suffered under WM, and a lot of people in rUK also want change.

If the bite goes no, what has actually been achieved? Does that not just put Scotland on the back foot? - I think it depends on who you ask, but yes, I think it would. It's unlikely we would get a chance to hold another referendum if we reject this opportunity.

Thanks statistically. I'm currently starting the 'wee blue book'. This a yes campaign document and as such I'm sure will contain bias, it is one of the best sourced documents, addressing some of the more critical questions I've come across to date.

I am becoming increasingly frustrated with all of the propaganda and scare mongering. I'd rather just have a civilised and educated debate!

Sorry for the woohoo, I've always wanted to be poster 1000!

In reply to your post on the last thread, SallyingForth:

No, that's entirely wrong. There will always be another chance. Next time it will be better prepared, hopefully with some real answers, and there will be a big Yes majority.

Sorry, I could have worded my other post better! We would get the chance to hold a referendum again, that's true, but WM don't have to legally recognise it, as the Spanish Government are doing with Catalonia.

"Well you won't get answers from the yes side as they don't know the answers. But don't worry it will all be fine."

Why are you stirring up trouble on the thread again? If it isn't you, then it's LadyCordelia or Chelsy. Please stop being so mean spirited.

Someone mentioned the little blue book. Really worth reading. Obviously not unbiased, what is? However it makes a lot of sense and is really honest and referenced.

Well done to WildThong for getting that woo hoo! in before the end of thread 5! Hoping I can be quick enough for the next one! This going to go on forever isn't it?!

Just read about the No campaigns 'threat' that Scottish children wouldn't be able to use Great Ormand Street Hospital, I really do find that disgusting. Threatening the welfare of a nations children is a very low tactic. Okay- rant over.

Yes, spider pretty disgusting! It beggars belief in fact. Mind you, they're obviously running scared

spidergirl8
The wee blue book is an excellent production on behalf of the Yes campaign. Very convincing, and one-sided as you might expect.

Just beware of the references. They are also very carefully selected, to lead you only to publications and statements that support its point of view, and away from anything that would dispute or disprove it.

Yes, spider pretty disgusting! It beggars belief in fact.

It beggars belief, simply because it isn't true. There have already been clear statements from UK NHS that cooperation with NHS Scotland will continue inhindered.

Yes Sally, that us my concern. Facts can be presented to create an unbalanced truth. Some of the arguments around economics though are quite convincing. In that area it's simply yes or no, based on stats so much harder to misrepresent?.....

But when you reference something you reference the thing that backs up your point... isn't that the point?

This is considered a neutral source by many

www.futureukandscotland.ac.uk/papers/scotlands-decision-16-questions-think-about-referendum-18-september

Maybe read this, read the wee blue book and perhaps someone can recommend some No campaign literature?

Personally I've found a good approach is whenever you read anything that begins to sway you, research what the other opinion says about it. Usually you'll find that they interpreted the same data and extrapolated differently. There doesn't seem to be many facts! But hey, it's the future. There's never any facts.

Some main decision points to me seem to be

Whether you are more inclined to be hopeful ( or risk taking) or fearful ( or risk averse)

If you believe that there needs to be a political change whether you feel a responsibility to the whole uk in trying to effect that change, or whether you feel it is only possible to do in the smaller different voting system of an idependant Scotland.

Other contentious and slightly more uninformed dualities in this debate seem to be divisions of class, wealth and nationality. Personally I think these are red herrings.

Good luck! What a luxury to be undecided!

There is no UK nhs though, that's the point. When it was set up each country within the UK was given control over their nhs. Nhs Scotland, England, Wales and Ireland.

Numanoid, this referendum is officially recognised.
If another referendum was held on a better proposal, and with a big majority, Westminster couldn't possibly object.

OK, here's my tuppence:

The GERS report here contains a lot of figures. Even the summary shows why our politicians are shouting at cross purposes:

In the last 5 years the average contribution by Scotland, including a "geographic share" of oil revenue is 9.54% of UK total, or £52863 million. We receive 9.28%., or £63139 million. This is because the UK as a whole is running a huge deficit. Which values are quoted depends on which side folk are on!

The impact on fiscal policy would be heavily dependent on the currency option which emerges after a Yes vote. All have pros and cons

1. Currency union - this is what was proposed in the white paper and is Salmond's preferred option. Any currency union by it's nature means not having full fiscal autonomy. The level of autonomy would depend on the terms negotiated with the other side - but it would not be full freedom so would impact policy. All 3 major UK political parties however have stated publicly that they would oppose this.
2. Sterlingization i.e. "just use the pound anyway" - a possible option and what we would have in at least the short run if option 1 didn't happen. Potentially significant impact on fiscal policy because interest rates and money circulation are under the control of another country. Would likely become more difficult to work with if the economies of rUK and iScotland started to diverge i.e. if an interest rate rise/cut was good for rUK, but not for iScotland
3. Own currency - full fiscal autonomy, but need to set up a new central bank, smaller currencies can be more volatile etc. Also issue of relative size of financial services industry at present relative to the Scottish economy.
4. Euro - more likely a long term option as EU entry rules say that you have to have a currency which you control first. So would need 3 first most likely

Economic stability - very, very hard to tell and really something you have to judge for yourself. Things to consider would be how the international markets will consider iScotland - linked to the currency question and also to how the negotiations progress, where we will stand in terms of debt, what will impact be on industries (especially large ones like oil, financial services etc). Very much an answer based on your own perception of risk. Also relative size of oil industry may mean that volatility could increase because it's a bigger % of our economy (compared to % of uk)

Will come back on others!

There's a debunking of the weebluebook somewhere - just like the politicians there is a reasonable amount of cherry picking of numbers. Its something to be very cautious of in all materials.

Numanoid, this referendum is officially recognised.
If another referendum was held on a better proposal, and with a big majority, Westminster couldn't possibly object.

This one is, but they don't have to recognise any future ones. They may see it as too much of a risk, as Cameron, Miliband and many others have stated that they don't want Scotland to have its independence.
They could follow in the footsteps of the Spanish Government and allow a referendum, but the result, effectively, wouldn't mean anything. It would be totally in the hands of WM whether the next one, if this one is a No vote, would be officially and legally recognised. It's not a chance I'd like to take.

In that area it's simply yes or no, based on stats so much harder to misrepresent?
Unfortunately there are just so many 'stats' around.
Yes will point you to genuine figures that show Scotland pays money to UK.
No will show you figures that clearly show UK pays money to Scotland.
There is no single, indisputable set of numbers because there are so many ways of calculation and presentation.

Oh gosh Irnbru poster asked for answers. Salmond can't give a clear answer on any of the questions as they don't know. He's still assuming for example he will get his currency union. He has been asked repeatedly what will happen if he doesn't, answer came there none.

I think the Wee Blue Book is quite good. Obviously it is a Yes publication, but I found it to be well put-together and it does have its sources to back up the points made.

Both campaigns have biased literature, though.

Statistically That is very well written. Have you considered writing the Wee [colour of your choice] Book of Stats?

Wow, you're onto thread 6. Sorry not been around, busy day today

I see the wee blue book is on the thread again - just be aware that there are people who disagree with it. Here is just one online blog about it, I have seen others

chokkablog.blogspot.co.uk/2014/08/the-wee-blue-book-of-lies.html?m=1

There's a debunking of the weebluebook somewhere - just like the politicians there is a reasonable amount of cherry picking of numbers. Its something to be very cautious of in all materials

chokkablog.blogspot.co.uk/2014/08/the-wee-blue-book-of-lies.html