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!

We're not all the same anymore than the no camp is! Duh!

Excuse me, you were the one who just said that the whole of Scotland would be behind a currency union. Duh right back

Santana, there is division in the yes camp! Hadn't you noticed that already?

Have we managed to find an yes on this thread who plans to vote SNP in 2016 yet?

I dunno, stat, stranger things and all that. The whole thing is pretty unprecedented, I think that there will be a lot of never say never ing in the event of a yes vote.

I see you are still talking about a CU. You seem to forget that it would affect nine times as many people in the cUK as it would in iScotland.

There are three reasons why it won't happen:

1. No UK chancellor is going to guarantee the economy of a foreign country - especially a new one that doesn't even know what its economic policies will be until after a general election in two years' time.

1. In the knowledge of point 1 above, all three major parties have committed themselves against having a CU with iScotland.

1. The UK population is against it, and any party leader who goes back on his commitment will be in serious trouble. There is widespread resentment at what the referendum has done and is doing to the whole UK, and people are in no mood to give what is seen as a big and risky favour to the SNP.

If you are in any doubt about this, watch the party conferences that start two days after the referendum. You may be sure that in the event of a Yes vote the issue of a CU will be high on the agenda for all the parties. Just see for yourselves what the delegates and party leaders will say.

Sweet dreams!

P.S. In case you missed it, here's what I posted earlier today:

I've been in email correspondence with a senior local politician preparing papers for the Party Conference (I'm not saying which).

I asked if the position on rejecting a CU was definite, and expressed my strong aversion to any change of mind.

The reply has just come in!

"You and a million others - if xxxxx changed his mind now, heads would roll"

I could be wrong, but I'm sure I read that it's not the actual subs that are the hardest thing to relocate as I think they could, in a pinch, operate from the USA. It's the actual weapons store at Coulport that's the tough bit. Maybe one of the defense gurus can confirm.

I still think things could change in the event of a yes vote.

And with that I'm off to sleep! Cheers for that debate, was going round my brain abit then and could not switch off and dream. Altho I better not continue incase I wake up Chelsy, she hates me talking about my dreams. Even in a mock sarcastic dramatic fashion. And quite right! Night x

CU- I'm trying not to be absolutist Deeedeee but I really, really don't think it's likely. Put it this way - I definitely would not base any decision on a belief it will or even might happen. I think it's very remote.

There's about the same chance as me waking up looking like Monica Bellucci, but hey, never say never!

2 things come to mind: nick Clegg and tuition fees.

My concern is that Scotland is too socialist to create a strong economy. The yes folk bang on about being more like Norway but (whisper it) Norway has, and has had in the past, a right wing government. Also, recent TV programme mentioned that the richest 1% of the Scottish population pay 20% of the income tax revenue generated by Scotland. Will they be encouraged to stay? Too much negativity by Scotland towards successful people. Major change in attitudes required.

Ps- there's our polar risk taking and risk averse personality types rearing themselves again stat :-) cheers for the chat! You're a gem

Thanks Statistically and Santana

Some other questions:

"The Yes campaign likes to tell us all that Scotland's economy is very different and that its priorities re spending are different. Under this line of argument, it doesn't make sense to use a currency which would be engineered for the benefit of a country with different needs to yours." I can see that this would be less than ideal for iScotland, but I'm not sure why this would be a huge negative for rUK.

" it's undeniable that the Scottish economy is considerably smaller than that of rUK..we would never be able to bail rUK out, but they could bail us out if it was needed". Granted. But what is the actual likelihood of this having to happen in the foreseeable future? In a CU, it seems like a theoretical risk.

"iScotland would be wanting to take a different approach on numerous elements of tax and spending which could easily cause our economies to diverge" Again, granted. But to what degree? And given that the Scottish economy is considerably smaller, what serious impact could that divergence really have?

"A drop in UK credit rating could happen for example - and that's a massive risk and could easily hurt more than the transaction costs or job losses from not having the union". This would depend on the risks created by a different tax and spending policies in an iScotland? And would need to balanced against the potential impact of transaction costs, job losses and the initial shock of splitting the Scottish economy from Sterling?

Sorry, for so many questions, just interested in the genuine barriers to a CU, apart from public mood.

RE Trident - I am absolutely for getting rid of Trident, but I would prefer to see it decommissioned than simply moved elsewhere. If decommissioning was on the table then I'd take that above all else. If rUK wished to host Trident then that's really up to rUK. Obviously it would take time to place Trident elsewhere and if there was a necessary overlap between rUK preparing to host Trident and a useful period of CU, then I wouldn't see that as a barrier to such an arrangement. But I would prefer it if it was taken as an opportunity for rUK to reject Trident too.

Us down South didn't assume it would be a no vote and choose to ignore it. We did that very British thing of stepping back and allowing you to argue among yourselves. But the debate is now so close we are cracking under the strain of biting down with our very British stiff upper lips. We are angry.

It is completely unfair for a country favours one tranche of its citizens over another. Why should Scotland enjoy more self-determination, more rights AND enjoy the equal rights and freedoms as the rUK?

And people criticising Cameron/Osborne for not offering devo max. Those rights and responsibilities aren't Cameron's to dish out unfairly among the people.

Grow up people in Scotland, please.

Itsall I'll still vote snp.

I do think the party lines will shift quite abit after independence though so who knows how the Scottish political landscape will look like in 20 years. Maybe there'll be no snp.

I think a new centre right party will emerge in place of the tories.

Nick Clegg is the minority party in a coalition who sold his soul for power. The politics of this are very different - the parties are in agreement.

Granted. But what is the actual likelihood of this having to happen in the foreseeable future? In a CU, it seems like a theoretical risk.

Because of the other turmoil that is possible it would actually happen pretty quickly. The risk is highest in times of uncertainty. Independence is inherently uncertainty. Greece, Spain, Ireland...it can happen fairly fast

Again, granted. But to what degree? And given that the Scottish economy is considerably smaller, what serious impact could that divergence really have?

If you are going to be in a CU, you want the country you are paired with to be as close to you economically as possible. That's how it works with fewest issues. Yes, Scotland's smaller but it could still do considerable damage. It's an asymmetric relationship - why would they take the risk when it's not politically desirable?

This would depend on the risks created by a different tax and spending policies in an iScotland? And would need to balanced against the potential impact of transaction costs, job losses and the initial shock of splitting the Scottish economy from Sterling?

Of course it would depend - but I don't think that equation, combined with the political environment, the investors perception, the size of the debt which would become more costly to service if Moody's are right, would be enough to offset that equation.

Machair Yes Norway has a totally different mindset.

Night all. Sleep well...

Goodnight!

I would see no need for vindictiveness when cateful thoughtful mutually beneficial negotiations are happening. And I would hope the rest of the uk would feel the same way when thinking about currency union

But it's not just vindictiveness. CU would at the least have to have no negative effects for it to be saleable to the UK.

So far as holding the UK to ransom over Trident what if UK just said no to CU and we'll move Trident when we're ready; or if it wanted to be conciliatory " we'll move it by 2024".

It can't be moved overnight. If Scotland went to court over it all it would achieve is the setting of a timetable for its removal. Much like you suggest but conceding nothing.

I think your suggestion is sensible; saying you can shove Trident unless we get what we want isn't.

D'ya ever wonder who the body double was for that picture?

And another thing, people go on about the Tories and the Lib Dems. They have had to make difficult decisions which they knew would make them unpopular to try to sort out the economy. Thank goodness Labour "lets keep spending money we don't have" didn't get back in, we'd really be in a mess

You have gone too far now Itsall!

There is yet another independence-related thread started in Chat and it is really reflecting what I think is the worst attitudes. Won't link as I don't want to be accused of doing a thread about a thread. It is though

"So far as holding the UK to ransom over Trident what if UK just said no to CU and we'll move Trident when we're ready; or if it wanted to be conciliatory " we'll move it by 2024"."

Well, we could always just keep it and decommission it ourselves.

Thanks, Statistically. Again, it seems like it's a question of rejecting the perceived risk "if it's politically undesirable" and factoring the "political environment" into the overall risk equation. I've read about the pros and cons of currency union a lot elsewhere, but it is nice to get the input of no voters on this thread, and try to disentangle the fiscal complications from emotional argument.