Did NS's threat of Indi 2 infuence your EU vote?

[Corcory]

If you are an SNP supporter was this your main season for voting remain or if you are from another part of the UK was the threat of Scottish independence another factor in your voting reasons.

You are presupposing that Scotland isn't in the EU Hirples with your tariffs argument. The SNP are adamant that Scotland should be in the EU. So you would have to pay tariffs according to what had been agreed by the EU with the UK without any say so. I and many leavers have no interest in being in the single market and are quite prepared to pay tariffs. I live in the Borders not far from England and certainly not keen on seeing border controls a Carter Bar brrrr! And what about Berwick upon Tweed?

The SNP are adamant that Scotland should be in the EU. So you would have to pay tariffs according to what had been agreed by the EU with the UK without any say so.

Ireland/N Ireland...

hirples you seem to continually ignore my argument that joining the Euro or not is dependent on being able to join the EU and Scotland's trade deficit means that is not an option.

Because I don't accept that our deficit is what you think it is, or that an iScotland would continue to run the economy the same way WM does at present.

We charge VAT, and much of that goes through as English revenue raising, because company HQs are in England. We export through English ports, and that goes on the books as English exports. We pay for "national infrastructure" (like Crossrail, London sewer renewal, HS2 etc) which doesn't actually benefit us. All of a sudden, our books look a lot better.

If we were really such an economic basketcase, why did WM fight so hard to keep us?

WM fight so hard to keep us?

Because the UK can't do without Scotland's contribution to GDP.

Now, it's more in Scotland's interest to vote for independence, stay in the EU and launch its own currency. That would mean control over its own fiscal policy.

We charge VAT, and much of that goes through as English revenue raising, because company HQs are in England. We export through English ports, and that goes on the books as English exports. We pay for "national infrastructure" (like Crossrail, London sewer renewal, HS2 etc) which doesn't actually benefit us. All of a sudden, our books look a lot better

But you don't seem willing to acknowledge that, for an awful lot of the goods you'd need, you'd have to pay import duty, hence they'd be more expensive so it's likely your tax revenue would decrease.

Likewise, maintaining your infrastructure, when the time comes it's needed, will cost a lot more per capita than rUK will.

We don't actually know that any import/export duties will apply, should iScotland remain in the EU after rUK leaves, that'll be a matter for Brexit negotiations. We're just going round in circles here and it's all speculative anyway.

As for infrastructure, we have already built the Borders railway and partly-built the new Forth crossing, with the dualling of the A9 also getting underway, and all without WM funding. Yes, new buildings and ongoing maintenance will cost more per capita, but then we'll have a lot more per capita when we're not paying for Crossrail etc.

It's a funny old debate really.

I guess my overriding thought is, if Scotland think they can make it on their own then crack on.

Likewise I'm sure the EU think the same of the U.K.

But 'cracking on' doesn't entail trying to cling on to all the benefits of the union whilst dismissing all the negatives and, as far as I can see that's exactly what both Scotland and the UK want to do.

Well I voted No in IndyRef and Remain in the EU referendum. Europe was absolutely a big part of that 'No' vote, so I do think there is a material change from 2014. In that case I think it's entirely fair that Nicola Sturgeon explores all options, including IndyRef 2.

The potential for an independence referendum had nothing to do with my Remain vote on the other hand.

Having said all of that, I feel that Brexit has really opened my eyes to the reality of the differences between Scotland and rUK. Leaving the economic arguments aside for a moment, I find myself seriously questioning whether politically and culturally, the UK union is one that makes sense for Scotland.

Really nice to see a critical discussion of the supposed "Scottish deficit".

I have linked to the IFS projections below (done pre Brexit vote). Without any adjustment they project a falling deficit. Even they accept that the Scottish starting debt position may be nil due to previous oil revenues. This adjustment alone gives a 4.4% deficit by 2020.

www.ifs.org.uk/publications/8218

The notion that the UK is supporting Scotland is simply not true. The IFS has loads of other studies looking at what counts as Scottish income and spending and the effect of the Barnett formula.

I am not an SNP supporter and would vote No in Indyref2.

Infrastructure wise Scotland has a much larger bill to maintain our roads etc. per capita than the rest of the UK as we are obviously a much smaller population with a very large land mass and dispersed communities. Many rural communities rely on subsidised bus routes, ferries etc. The cost of providing services such as the NHS, Education and community services is also much higher.
Scotland may well start life as an independent country with no legal reason to take a proportion of the UK debt but we spend more than we receive in income so we have a deficit every year so that is what the EU will look at in seeing if Scotland meets the fiscal requirements of the EU.
To rely on oil revenue is very risky indeed as can been seen in recent times with the fluctuation of the price of oil lately. Also the UK government has reduced the % of tax it takes from producers in order to help the consumer and this has reduced the amount of revenue.
If Scotland becomes independent I would then have responsibility for payment of all welfare benefits and pensions which at the moment are the responsibility of the UK. There is a higher proportion of people in Scotland on benefits so it would seem to me that an iScotland would increase taxes and reduce benefits in order to balance the books.

I am in England, voted remain not for fear of "losing" Scotland but because I believe in the EU. On a selfish note, if TM plunges us further into Brexit Hell than we already are by triggering A50 then I for one hope the Indy ref goes ahead and succeeds - and that NS manages to negotiate either staying in the EU or re-entry. If independence occurs then I will be claiming my Scottish Citizenship (father was born in Scotland) and my children will also be able to have Scottish citizenship (and therefore hopefully EU citizenship).

Corcory the IFS projection of 4.4% deficit by 2020 is their best estimate taking all of what you say into account. It is also a reducing deficit trend. The Euro entry condition is 3%. Sweden will be required to join the Euro when it meets the conditions.

ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/euro/adoption/who_can_join/index_en.htm

Most countries run with a deficit, even Norway with it's oil fund, so an iScotland would be the same. We would, of course, have to meet EU criteria, as you say, but when we're making our decisions ourselves, that will be more easily achieved than when we have WM spending money on our behalf on eg illegal wars. We're not overly dependent on oil, it makes up about 6% of our GDP and as I said earlier, a) cheaper oil = cheaper goods because of lower transport costs and b) 100% of the tax revenues at $40 a barrel is going to be more than 10% at $100. And how UK gvt taxes the oil industry isn't necessarily going the be the same as how an indy Scottish gvt does it!

As for current pensions, as stated by Treasury, since they have been paid into WM, they'll be paid out by WM. Obviously there will have to be negotiations regarding everyone else, and a gradual transition to the Scottish gvt becoming responsible, but that's not going to happen overnight.

Howabout - and funnily enough, Sweden never quite manages to meet the criteria for joining the Euro wonder why?

And I thought I was the cynic pretty

I'm not an SNP supporter although I voted for Scottish independence in the referendum. One of the reasons was I thought it was our best chance of remaining in the EU.

I hope Scotland don't leave, I don't believe they are currently in a sufficiently good financial position to leave and there is no guarantee of them quickly joining the EU, it could take several years.

Although the Scottish economy isn't great it doesn't require the regional development funding that Wales & Cornwall do. For those of us who can remember, the UK's economy wasn't that great when we joined the EEC back in the 1970s. Fed Reserve had intervened & eventually we were bailed out by the IMF. With the right infrastructure there is plenty of scope for Scotland to develop it's economy & there is interest from City firms to relocate to Scotland to secure single market status.

www.cityam.com/244386/snp-has-met-top-city-lobbyist-seeks-establish-edinburgh

EU accession conditions are set out in the Copenhagen Agreement.
The economic criteria is the existence of a functioning market economy as well as the capacity to cope with competitive pressures and market forces within the EU. Scotland can meet this.

Forbes article is a bit misleading when it says in order to join the EU you’ve got to have a budget deficit of 3% of GDP or less. A budget deficit of 3% of GDP or less is the condition for joining the Eurozone not the EU.

Having said that if Scotland were to hold indyref2 & become independent before the UK leaves the EU it may be possible to remain in the EU by treaty amendment rather can through the accession process.

papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2462227

With regard to currency Melvyn King, former Governor BoE for 10 years, thinks it is feasible for Scotland to keep the £, either officially or unofficially.

stv.tv/news/politics/1346145-independent-scotland-can-use-the-pound-unofficially-says-former-bank-chief/