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!

just for you polo!

x

night night strange referendum thread pals x

Depends on the pollster. Some are online, some are telephone, some are street. Telephone and street are randomly chosen. Online polls have a pool of people they had signed up before, that they pick randomly from.

Dream on fanny , I really don't think that is why sterling fell.

www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/07/scottish-independence-pound-drop-value

OK, I've had a look.

TBH, it's not an article that I find hugely convincing in terms of independence as a solution. It relates some facts, but fails to make appropriate comparisons or explore causation fully. It also pins responsibility for issues to WM a little too readily. The current benefit cuts are causing many people difficulties - that is undeniable. BUT - I'll try to dig them out - polls showed that until the referendum campaign really started in earnest opinions on benefits across the UK and Scotland were fairly consistent. There was one that asked if benefits were too generous, and about the same proportion of Scots said yes as in the UK as a whole. It's also worth noting that Salmond himself didn't oppose the benefits cap.

It talks about things like pockets of deprivation - but doesn't really explore the reasons for these properly. Whilst the Scottish Government doesn't have responsibility for benefit it does have responsibility for numerous other areas where it could have influenced these issues. Large areas of deprivation in Glasgow, for example, have been a problem for as long as I can remember.

Also, it makes loads of suggestions but in most cases with no actual concept of how we would fund these. There is not a huge excess pot of cash available to do everything, and it largely doesn't propose where the money would come from or what the impact would be.

They've tacked a paragraph on about the balance of payments surplus without any sort of numbers or even a full explanation of how they've arrived at that conclusion - it's very poor IME.

I think it's possibly a bit naive, I suppose. It's someone who wants to see things change but hasn't really gone deep enough or thought their ideas through enough. Most of the issues they highlight aren't peculiarly Scottish either.

I was contacted by I think Ipsos Mori once months ago. I was a firm No then and still am. I haven't been contacted again.

You heard if here first. They will have to do something to appease the market. Currency union, betcha.

I really don't think that is why sterling fell.

Why is it? I presumed it was because if no currency union rUK loses 10% GDP, plus either way it loses a big chunk of assets?

We are seeing are the jitters in the markets as uncertainty rises around business investment.

As analysts predicted sterling fell again and has been the most volatile in three year period in run up to referendum date.

FannyFifer, did you see the Moody's information I posted upthread? Amongst other things, they said that a currency union would be a negative for the rUK - "In addition, a potential currency union with the remainder of the UK would be credit negative if it were to materialise. However, cross-party opposition to such an outcome makes this unlikely."

The markets are jittery at the concept of massive upheaval. They don't like volatility and unpredictability.

You heard if here first. They will have to do something to appease the market. Currency union, betcha.

I really don't know if they can. They've dug themselves a really deep hole over this issue how I will laugh if you are right though

I am a Guardian reader but take anything it says about Scotland with enormous quantities of salt.

The Guardian is very biased in favour of anything Scottish; partly because I think it believes the spin about how much nicer, fairer etc, etc it is here and partly to counteract accusations of being Londoncentric. In subjects which I do know about it is often wrong.

I may be missing something Fanny, but rUK without oil and whisky revenue would also save ??about the same amount on the Barnett grant.

Dream on, Fanny!

I read all your links Stat. There's been a few that I hadn't seen elsewhere.

Shall wait & see what happens next though as the panic has now set in, it's certainly getting interesting.

Just starting work now so back tomorrow at some point.

I may be missing something Fanny, but rUK without oil and whisky revenue would also save ??about the same amount on the Barnett grant

You are missing something rUK would not 'save' on Barnett as it would also lose the Scottish tax revenues that more than pay for it....

700,000 English jobs depend on exports to Scotland and would be under threat if WM refused a CU.

So either you think WM will have a government that would do this to its own people just to score a political point, which makes it a horrible institution and not one people should trust or WM are bluffing now and we will have a CU and all your doomsaying is over nothing and you have no 'no' arguments left.

So basically, either way yes wins.

I may be missing something Fanny, but rUK without oil and whisky revenue would also save ??about the same amount on the Barnett grant

Sorry for being unclear. Basically rUK would be about 10% smaller in all areas, population, assets, economics. It wouldn't really be an overall winner or loser.

ItsAll that's my point - they pretty much equal each other out.

sorry, I've done masses of xposts - my point was that it hasn't caused sterling to fall. As others have said, it's the huge uncertainty that has caused the wobble.

Statistically challenged- re: the deprivation in Glasgow, sometimes called 'the Glasgow effect'. I found Carol Craig's book 'the tears that made the Clyde' excellent on this. She links the psychological impact of being told we are 'too wee, too poor, too stupid' with the terrible health outcomes in glasgow compared to similar postcodes in Liverpool and Manchester.

That wasn't a dig FannyFifer, more it's a long thread and you could easily have missed it!

I would still say movements are more due to instability. A yes vote means 18 months of heavy negotiations and massive uncertainty - that would only ever hurt the £. But most experts seem to think that CU would hurt more.

You know the "too wee, too poor, too stupid" comment? It was invented by the SNP - Swinney might have been the first to use it, I'm not 100% sure.

Just thought of something I would like to ask-

If there is a yes vote, will you currency union sceptics then want the rUK to enter one?

Oh come off it re Glasgow . I don't know what causes the Glasgow effect. Given it persists no matter how much money and effort is thrown at I'm not the only one, but who exactly is saying "too wee " etc?

And are they only saying it in Glasgow given the rest of Scotland doesn't suffer from it?