The SNP says the UK (not Scotland) is on “borrowed time”

[Isitmebut]

A SNP needing oil over $100 a barrel to even hope to balance its annual budget, apparently needing to be in a low growth uncompetitive Europe, want more UK national debt they previously threatened to walk away from, not using the devolved powers they already have, and no longer wants a Trident deterrent - as will somehow be safe from the blasts/fallouts when the rest of the UK gets nuked – says that if their 5 million citizens can’t decide what the other 60 million want, they want to leave the UK.

Goldman Sees 15 Years of Weak Crude as $20 U.S Oil Looms
www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-09-17/goldman-sees-15-years-of-weak-crude-as-20-u-s-oil-looms-on-glut

A glut of crude may keep oil prices low for the next 15 years, according to Goldman Sachs Group Inc.

There’s less than a 50 percent chance that prices will drop to $20 a barrel, most likely when refineries shut in October or March for maintenance, Jeffrey Currie, head of commodities research at the bank, said Wednesday in an interview in Lake Louise, Alberta. Goldman’s long-term forecast for crude is at $50 a barrel, he said.

The people of Scotland who appear to be encouraging the SNP to take this continual threatening stance, really needs to be better informed by the SNP on the financial prospects of an independent Scotland – which in reality is the ONLY SNP short, medium and long term objective.

Nearly 60 Scottish Westminster MP’s especially with a single purpose, should be fully capable of negotiating with the government.

Specifying exactly WHAT powers they additionally want the current ones already given don’t cover – rather than offering this continual mono bluster pissing off the vast majority within the UK including many Scots – as it is surely counter productive for practical and good will reasons, when all parties really know Scotland can’t economically afford the SNP's objective.

Anyone, especially the SNP, who can show a Scotland can afford to be without the current Barnett Formula, please show the independence projected finances - as if I am wrong, I will be happy to say so.

Normally when countries go for independence, they do so despite any financial difficulties, and find their way. The issue is about self rule, that is a principle.

PacificDogwod …. Re your question
”What is your interest in this, itsmebut? Genuine question.”
”I am very impressed by you being motivated enough to post all this.”

I had several reasons that motivated me, but please do not be impressed that I had to spend time on the post, as I know a little bit about international finance/politics so every time I hear the SNP’s threats, all of those points above go through my head – as it SHOULD be apparent to every nationalist politician, Scotland WITHOUT establishing Scotland’s capital markets first, allowing them to borrow and trade like every other country – they cannot be independent.

Personally I want the UK to stay together, and although English, if I had to be any other nationality in the world, I would like to be Scottish based on their history, with all that pride, intellect and fighting spirit – and really think that it would be cool to be part of a clan with a kick arse tartan.

However I’m both proud to be English and totally understood the basic reason for at least wanting independence.

But clearly the majority of the Scottish people have never been given all the stark economic facts, which was why in part many large/international companies would have left Scotland on independence – not knowing what their base/accounting currency was to be, how volatile a relatively small country new currency would trade, and how volatile Scottish interest rates would have been MANAGING that currency and inflation.

And as poster Kampeki alludes to in the politicking here and now, call me selfish but Scottish Independence would have tied up all our politicians/civil service for several years unpicking a constitution put together hundreds of years ago, and like a bad divorce, constantly arguing about who owes/owns what – when rumour has it, there are numerous other UK issues to sort..

But once the Referendum scores was on the doors and it was a ‘no’ it didn’t matter any more, I seriously hoped Cameron/Westminster gave Holyrood all the powers they promised, and Holyrood endlessly ASKING for those powers, USED them.

But what I think I see is the SNP getting powers they are not using, and 50-odd Scottish Awkward Squad SNP MPs using their time in Westminster constantly politicking against a legitimate Conservative government they said they would NEVER support/accept within a Westminster hung parliament (no matter what their majority).

Which is a legitimate function of an HM Opposition Party, but again using parliamentary time and procedures as some kind of an internal resistance movement to try and show they aren’t getting anything that was promised, which is not the case and other ‘stuff’ is in the parliamentary pipeline.

margeys .... Re your Normally when countries go for independence, they do so despite any financial difficulties, and find their way.

But we are talking about a budget deficit that would seriously affect Scotland's services, benefits, welfare from Year One - as take the UK government spending around £760 billion a year with a near £70 billion annual deficit, if the UK could not borrow that £70 billion this year, in Sterling, in the UK Gilt market - we would need to be ADDITIONALLY cutting that £70 billion from services, benefits, welfare and maybe pensions this year and/or SUBSTANTIALLY RAISING TAXES which could put us back in recession.

The fact Ms Sturgeon endlessly talks about the UK government cutting our deficit as far as we have done as ideological austerity - how then could a Ms Sturgeon take Scotland Independent KNOWING that it would mean far worse austerity on the Scottish people?

The fact Ms Sturgeon endlessly talks about the UK government borrowing more, and last year there was no mechanism for an Independent Scotland TO BORROW AT ALL, it is not just political hypocrisy, it is total 'donkys leading (nationalist) lions' irresponsibility.

So what other countries done that have gained independence? Many in a much more precarious financial position than Scotland?

Well first and foremost those countries will have their own currency and some kind of credit record/rating via the likes of international syndicated loans, if never issued government bonds, which almost certainly would have a credit agency rating.

Brazil, one of the huge growth stories and the 'B' of the BRICs (Brazil, Russia, India China) has just been downgraded to 'junk' (so paying more interest to borrow via the capital markets), Russia's oil economy would be suffering whether a western embargo (including access to the capital markets) or not - and even China is facing huge problems, so even ESTABLISHED currencies/bond markets, somewhat larger than Scotland are going through a very bad time.

If Salmond/Sturgeon says 'look it is going to be very painful for several years while we establish a currency and capital market structure, so budgets/services will be cut, interest rates could be all over the place', then fine, the people of Scotland would be informed, but I suspect that honest news flash would affect the vote somewhat.

P.S. Often currencies are unofficially pegged to another currency, often the U.S. dollar i.e. some countries in the Middle East and now 'emerged' Far East, which looks to ease some of the potential volatility of a smaller economy country.

Scotland COULD peg their currency to the Pound of Euro, but as the argument about the pros and cons in a Greece leaving the Euro and re establishing the Drachma - the ability for an individual country to establish a weak currency, likely to be inflationary, could help that country export/grow faster.

The point is, there is a shed load more detail/risk for a Scotland to go independent, than the people of Scotland are being told.

If Salmond/Sturgeon says 'look it is going to be very painful for several years while we establish a currency and capital market structure, so budgets/services will be cut, interest rates could be all over the place', then fine, the people of Scotland would be informed, but I suspect that honest news flash would affect the vote somewhat.

Everyone I know accepted and knew this, it would never have been easy. I know No Voters like to think that Yes Voters were niave/stupid/blinded by nationalism but I dont think any Yes voters were under the illusions that Scotland would be the land of milk and honey after independence. In fact the only people I heard trying stating this were Better Together campaigners who were inferring that this is what Salmond was promoting but I cant say I ever heard or read the Yes side peddling it.

The issue is about self rule, that is a principle. This 1000 times over is why I voted yes, and most people i know and will continue to hope/campaign for it.

harrasseddotco. ....... Re your "Everyone I know accepted and knew this,"

Really, all I heard was Salmond telling everyone that Scotland WOULD keep the UK Pound, our interest rates, so a UK cheque book and therefore protection against capital market/debt volatility - and that we could stuff your portion of our National Debt where the sun hardly shines - and talking of Gordon Brown, I suspect that his warning that UK state pensions are all unfunded and at risk in an independent Scotland, bolstered the 'no' vote.

If Salmond was preparing for independence and for a tough economic time, please show up the details of a proposed Scottish currency (what was it to be called?), a full Stock Exchange, interest rates and application for a credit rating from a credit rating agency - otherwise we'll assume that the 'yes' camp is STILL telling Jackanorys as a self rule principle.

All the Yes voters I know are of the opinion that independence would enrich Scotland and allow 'Wee Nic' to overnight abolish austerity, unemployment, foodbanks, yaddah yaddah. No dark times ahead with that fairy dust.

If (when?) there's another referendum, surely the result won't be based on over 50% get their way. It needs to be far more decisive than that - 66%?

State pensions were not to be affected by independence, this was a myth peddled by Better Together. UK minister issued a statement confirming this - www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-27309215. However since state pension is basically a pyramid scheme I think there are at risk anyway hence retirement age getting older and older (I assume in the hope that this means less time to claim and recouping costs but i could be wrong).

I think was Salmond actually said was "We remain prepared to negotiate taking responsibility for financing a fair share of the debts of the UK provided, of course, Scotland secures a fair share of the assets, including the monetary assets," Which i agree with.

Im a SAHM of a disabled child, with a partner in full time work. Still awaiting to see how im Better Together because so far it seems pretty shit and bleak for my family.

I'm sure that there are many that would like to 'load' the future EU Referendum on a 2 to 1 ratio, but in fairness any referendum has to be a 51% majority carries it.

harrasseddotcom .... re pensions and uk national debt, as the BBC link said, pensions will be secure, but don't know which government would be paying it - and would all had to have been negotiated in the 'divorce'.

But UK pensions, which is unfunded and current liabilities are around £1 trillion ON TOP of the £1.6 trillion of National Debt, comes out of the annual UK National Budgets when claimed/falls due.

So would under a nasty divorce, Scotland just receive a credit for all the National Insurance etc Scotland had paid in, and would this be enough to fund Scottish pensions in the future on the cut off point, as why would future growth in the rest of the UK's population then fund Scotland's shortfall?

Anyhoo its immaterial now, but as to any current welfare/benefits shortfalls in Scotland, Holyrood has already been given SOME new powers on welfare and taxes, why don't Scotland put up taxes to fund whatever they want welfare etc to be?

Dont think Holyrood had been given any powers over welfare, tories vetoed this, although im prepared to accept im wrong if shown. Its tc that will be cut Apr 2016 (under Better Together/UK Governemnt) and then my sons DLA is due for renewal Nov 2016 (presumably under Better Together/UK Government) and given how DLA/PIP have been handled for the last 5 years id be unsurprised if they assessed my ds as fit for work regardless the fact hes 4. Please explain how Holyrood could amend TC/DLA?

margeys
Normally when countries go for independence, they do so despite any financial difficulties, and find their way. The issue is about self rule, that is a principle.

Yes of course it is but the majority voted against that. Are you suggesting that majority should be ignored and you have independence regardless? That would be supreme arrogance and clearly won't happen.

SwedishEdith
If (when?) there's another referendum, surely the result won't be based on over 50% get their way. It needs to be far more decisive than that - 66%?

And what if it's not? I agree with Isitmmebut, 51% carries it. I can't see any other way of doing it.

Lol at the yes campaign stating that independence would be very difficult in the early days. Did they heck. Most of what I read said pretty clearly that if we went independent then we'd wake up the next day to no food banks or inequality.

Look, I detest better together. Dreadful name, dreadful campaign. But you can't have it both ways. If the yes camp were voting on a point of principle and not fiddly small print, then so were the no camp. I couldn't care less about the vow, or about 'scaremongered' stories re the pound or the BBC.

I voted no purely on the principle that I do not want to separate our country.

why don't Scotland put up taxes to fund whatever they want welfare etc to be?

Political suicide. They know that everyone with any level of wealth would simply move it down south or elsewhere, and they have to be able to attract wealth into the country - which wouldn't happen if taxes were higher than they were 60 miles down the road.

Morris - I'm the same as you, to a point. I'm a British Scot in equal measure, and voted no because I don't want my country to separate. However, if the SNP had presented options for independence that were absolutely sound on an economic, social and every other type of basis which would mean that Scotland would prosper then I would vote yes. They didn't - and they haven't. They have done nothing to improve conditions in Scotland, despite having had the means to do so. They are like petulant teenagers who whinge and moan about the unfairness of it all, while posturing and waving flags in their stronghold city, and it's becoming boring - they have nothing to offer beyond narrow minded nationalism.

Oh - and re taxes. If they put up the top rate of tax they would have to put up the bottom rate too, which wouldn't go down well.

My heart sank when Salmond and Sturgeon started up with the 'lets have anoither referendum' rhetoric this week.

I have a lot of friends who are yes supporters and FB has been very tiresome over the last couple of days with that all that 'hope over fear' stuff and charming comments about 'nawbags'.

I notice that TS has hijacked the 'Yes' vote as well to further his own ends - apparently the Sunday Herald was banned from the event in George Square yesterday.

The whole thing is and was unutterably grim and a repeat would be awful.

Why was the Sunday Herald banned?

And more to the point, why would any serious political party want TS to speak for it, or be in any way associated with it?

Thanks for answering me, itsmebut.

I enjoy reading the knowledgable political threads, so am truly appreciative of people taking the time. Don't have much to contribute, but I learn

Why was the Sunday Herald banned? Really?!

Well quite SirC. I suspect a lot of people in the 'Yes' camp aren't happy about his involvement.

I'm not sure why the Sunday Herald was banned from the event...especially since they're one of the few pro independence papers. Very odd.

There's an article in the SH about it today. I'm n on my phone so can't link atm but it will do later.

I'm sure it's nothing to do at all with the Sunday Herald always referring to TS in articles as "convicted perjurer Tommy Sheridan"
No no nothing at all to do with that.