To ask how a yes vote would actually affect England?

[ziggiestardust]

I can't really seem to find unbiased information anywhere

At the moment, I'm wondering whether it wouldn't be better if Scotland got its independence what with all these people who want it (or at least polls seem to say it's very close!) but again, I don't know.

Is it a good thing?

Ha, Freudian slip on the Gilts there.

If they aren't planning to take their share of the debt, are there positive things/amounts of money they are hoping to take a share of?

I have to say I've ignored everything about Scottish independence.

Tinkly, there has been, and is planned, massive investment in Scottish oil fields; Shell, BP, I think Statoil too are spending billions on extraction. Google "Clair Ridge" just for starters. Our share is the tax on the revenues generated, we don't need to pay for any of it.

How do you mean, OwlCapone? We'll keep all of the taxes generated in Scotland (income tax, VAT, fuel duties, whisky, oil and gas etc) instead of sending it to WM. And then spend/save it as we see fit.

Assets.

That would all be subject to negocitation, but we've been paying into the Union for over 300 years, I imagine we're due some assets.

ziggiestardust do you have a link?

Surely the UK has been paying in, not Scotland...? That seems to be the argument for not taking a share of the debt.

NHS Scotland is already separate - I would assume that money is transferred when people get treatment the other side of the border already, so I don't see that suddenly changing. In the same way the NHS sends people to have treatment in other countries when it is not available here - there are presumably always going to be payments which the end-user doesn't see.

The debt question is part of the whole sterling question - if we have links between our economies, we have links between our debts. Hard for Westminster to say that we don't get any of the security of the Bank of England, but we have to accept a share of the debts.

If it is the Union's debt not Scotland's then they are the Union's assets not Scotland's. You can't have it both ways.

Immergation

Scotland need more and we want less

If they mess up like irland as the neighbours we would be expected to help them out

but the good news is they will no longer be able to bar English students for having free uni if they join the EU yay

And good will be much cheaper as the pound will of course be stronger than the groat

No Owl. The logic is that whatever Scotland put in it is entitled to take back out - like a pension. Let's not consider the other financial details, just imagine it as a savings plan that has come due.

There are lots of emotive statements like that in the 'manifesto'. I asked about the NHS here a while ago, and was utterly flamed, as Scotland runs its own NHS. I was further rounded upon for enquiring who paid for it...

Passions run high, so high they may drown common sense. But as there is no clear cut information it is really hard to tell.

Add message | Report | Message poster OwlCapone Sun 07-Sep-14 17:16:20
If they aren't planning to take their share of the debt, are there positive things/amounts of money they are hoping to take a share of?
they have to take their share of debut because if you default on your debuts not matter why the only person who will lend you money is WONGa and if scotalnd think they can default on debts and still borrow and a sensible rate they should ask Greece

There appears to be a get around to the university fees according to the proposals for independence, so don't get too excited!

There was an Andrew Neil programme on BBC recently which looked at some possible consequences of Scottish Independence: "What's at stake for the UK."

hat was my point too Thefishewife and if there is no financial stability, then the EU won't be letting them in either. They don't just let anybody in - certain criteria have to be met.

Their supposed economic prosperity is dependent of a commodity that is yielding declining revenues and about which there is a lot of uncertainly. Nobody seems to be able to agree how much there is. One report I saw recently said 30 yrs worth and a pro-independence anaylst said that was alarmist and there was 50% more than that but that only makes 45 yrs worth of oil. Not really the basis of long term economic viability, is it? Salmond probably doesn't care about that - he will be long gone.

I think it's bad for the rest of the union either way:

It's a yes: the scots go, no one really benefits in a divorce. We lose assets, culture, research etc. We become a right wing country, it's bad for democracy.

It's a no: the scots start demanding more independence and more from parliament by way of hand outs etc.

It makes me sad that anyone really wants to leave the union. I really can't believe it's better for anyone to be two separate countries, especially in an increasingly global yet unsteady world.

Old lady it was 2 of the Scottish banks that were well and truely fucked.

And I still don't get, and the pro-independence people don't seem to be able to answer, how you have independence if you keep the currency of the UK with or without currency union. Westminster can't hand over control to a foreign nation so Westminster policy will be controlling the currency. How would that be independence for Scotland?

As a scot I have no idea what I am voting so I don't know where the poll results come from.

I have so many questions and no one has the answers. I think there should be Yes, No, Undecided on the ballot paper. I reckon there would be a lot of Undecided voters.

Could I take a wee minute to point out that if scotland votes for independence we are not actually moving anywhere.
The way some people speak you would think that we were planning to move.

We will still welcome people from England, N Ireland and Wales to come, spend money, look and the views, enjoy the festival, drink the whisky.
(It's only English MP's - Milleband and Ferarge - who talk about borders and policing England with The army and guns. We scots have no interest in spending money this way)

I suspect very little will change in England post ref - you might be a little poorer without the oil money. And you'll have to palm your Wepons Of mass distruction onto the welsh. Lots of stuff will have to be negotiated, rather than Westminster making the rules, which will be different. Nice for us, not as nice for Westminster.

We scots will still like you x

Even without control of things like interest rates, we'd still be able to decide what rates of tax to charge, and what to spend them on. And what our defence strategy would be. I'd like full economic control as well, and I suspect any use of sterling without joint control would be a temporary measure until Scotland got confident enough of our abilities to decided either to join the Euro or have our own currency.

But people's attachment to 'the pound' is quite deep, if unthinking, and the Yes campaign don't want to cross that bridge until we have to.

Just re-read that and I think the last sentence sounds like I am the Yes Campaign - I'm not involved with it, though I'm in favour!

ifyoubuildit no one is asking for more money - all we want is control over the money we do have.

I am a bit astounded that someone would think a cry for financial autonomy is actually a county demanding more money.

Read what amuminscotland writes

Scotland accounts for 8.4% of the UK population, 8.3% of the UK's total output and 8.3% of the UK's non-oil tax revenues - but 9.2% of total UK public spending. Do the maths, folks.