Scotland. Independent?

[Solopower]

Do we need a thread on Scotland?

Here are some opinions - what do you think?

Ian Bell: www.heraldscotland.com/comment/columnists/a-vote-for-independence-not-for-salmonds-policies.17698693
The Scottish people should have the right to choose.

Iain McWhirter: www.heraldscotland.com/comment/columnists/why-snp-has-to-work-to-win-round-scunnered-scots.17677823
Most people have other priorities just now and are too tired to care.

Humza Yousaf
www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/may/26/scottish-independence-labour?newsfeed=true
The Scottish Labour Party should back independence and go against the party line.

Its a different level of government anyway. Europe would not decide our tax raising powers or policy on defence etc etc.

You should try telling that 'Europe would not decide' line to Greece, Ireland, Spain.....

Re EU membership.

Apparently there are two options on this:

Scotland becomes a partition of the UK. That means Scotland would automated retain membership of the EU, debts etc would be split by population...

Scotland becomes an entirely new country. This would be entertaining in many ways. Scotland would have to apply to join the EU yes. But so would England/wales/NI as they would be a new country too. And under non-proliferation treaty we wouldn't be allowed to give nukes back to England.

All this is hypothetical of course. It is a rare event and there are not that many precedents to go on.

JollyDiane as far as I am aware assets that are physically located in a particular country will stay there. Re debt etc, I believe this is done by head of population so as Scotland has say 10% of the total population of the UK it would take on 10% of debt.

Currency. Initially probably not. Scots would retain the pound, with interest rates set by Bank of England.

Scotland would probably lose its triple A rating yes. However, thsi is the not disaster some make it out to be. Japan has, I think an AA- rating, but gets better rates than the UK as it hasa healthier economy.

Re companies, I guess they would be regulated the way they currently are if operating in more than one country (don't know what that is though).

Re bailing out banks. Under international convention, if Scotland had been independent at the time of the RBS debacle it would have only been responsible for the percentage of activity that takes place in Scotland, which I think is about 10% of the total. So not a problem.

Westminster would no longer have Scottish MPs. This would make very little difference to the overall make up of Westminster as Scotland (and Wales) have such a low percentage of population. Fundamentally, the UK gets the government that the English (especially SE English) vote for, and this has always been the case.

As commonwealth/irish citizens can currently act as MPs in Westminster, I guess Scots would be able to.

yakbutter The Union of the Crowns occured a good 100 years before teh union of Scotland with England. This Union would in theory be unaffected by Scotland become indeed. Plus I think Scotland would become a member of the commonwealth anyway with the Queen at its head.

Indeed= independent fecking autocorrect

Anyone can stand as MP provided they are a British citizen, a citizen of a commonwealth country or the Republic of Ireland. Birmingham MP Gisela Stuart, for example, was born in Germany but has British nationality status.

It's AllGoing - you said 'Westminster would no longer have Scottish MPs. This would make very little difference to the overall make up of Westminster as Scotland (and Wales) have such a low percentage of population'.

But whatever our population, we still get to send at least one MP from each constituency down to London, don't we - even if there are only two people on the electoral register? Wouldn't that make us over-represented in Westminster, rather than under?

But that still doesn't change the fact that, as you say, 'the UK gets the government that the English (especially SE English) vote for, and this has always been the case'. Maybe it's because they have more, smaller constituencies?

The reason I think we are not represented at Westminster is because we only elected one Tory MP north of the border.

goingsolo

502 MPs representing England
30 representing Wales
52 representing Scotland
16 representing NI.

Even if all 52 Scottish MPs were Conservatives they have no power against the vast numbers of English MPs. English interests will always win in Westminster.

ItsAllGoingToBeFine

Re EU membership.

Apparently there are two options on this:

Scotland becomes a partition of the UK. That means Scotland would automated retain membership of the EU, debts etc would be split by population...

That would mean that Scotland wasn't an independent country.

Scotland becomes an entirely new country. This would be entertaining in many ways. Scotland would have to apply to join the EU yes. But so would England/wales/NI as they would be a new country too.

The UK would not be a new country so would not need to rejoin.

And under non-proliferation treaty we wouldn't be allowed to give nukes back to England.

That seems to me to be an argument conjured up by anti-nuclear campaigners rather than an actual reading of the NPT.

JollyDiane as far as I am aware assets that are physically located in a particular country will stay there. Re debt etc, I believe this is done by head of population so as Scotland has say 10% of the total population of the UK it would take on 10% of debt.

It may not be. It may be done by GNP.

Currency. Initially probably not. Scots would retain the pound, with interest rates set by Bank of England.

Only if the UK agreed the Scotland could do that. It's a British currency, not a Scottish one. You can't assume that the Treasury would agree to that.

Scotland would probably lose its triple A rating yes. However, thsi is the not disaster some make it out to be. Japan has, I think an AA- rating, but gets better rates than the UK as it hasa healthier economy.

The credit rating is not a reflection of the health of the economy. It is a reflection of the belief by the credit agency that the country will be able to repay its debts. It is a reflection of risk.

Re companies, I guess they would be regulated the way they currently are if operating in more than one country (don't know what that is though).

Scotland would probably simply continue using EU and British legislation for its corporations.

Re bailing out banks. Under international convention, if Scotland had been independent at the time of the RBS debacle it would have only been responsible for the percentage of activity that takes place in Scotland, which I think is about 10% of the total. So not a problem.

I don't think that's correct, but let's assume it is. The combined debts of the two failed Scottish banks is something like £200Bn. That would give you £20Bn of debt to underwrite against a GDP (2009 figure) of £140Bn. That immediately adds 14% to the country's debt to GDP ratio which will be well over 100% if we're assuming Scotland takes its fair share of the UK's debt. It's a very serious problem and not one you should take lightly..

Westminster would no longer have Scottish MPs. This would make very little difference to the overall make up of Westminster as Scotland (and Wales) have such a low percentage of population. Fundamentally, the UK gets the government that the English (especially SE English) vote for, and this has always been the case.

Incorrect. Scotland's political influence is heavily over-weighted in Westminster. Look at the figures for the number of electors each MP is responsible for.

Re EU membership - I was wrong there are three options :-)

Continuation and secession (the rest of the UK would retain its treaty obligations and membership of international organisations, but Scotland would not);

separation (both entities would retain them);

and dissolution (both would lose them).

Debt
As far as I am aware Scotland?s GDP per capita is broadly similar to UK as a whole, so whether it is done by population directly, or by GDP per capita the outcome would be similar. I don't think there have been any other proposals as to how it would realistically be split?

ItsAllGoingToBeFine

Re EU membership - I was wrong there are three options :-)

Continuation and secession (the rest of the UK would retain its treaty obligations and membership of international organisations, but Scotland would not);

separation (both entities would retain them);

and dissolution (both would lose them).

I'm a touch unclear, though, as to how being run by Brussels is better than being run by Westminster.

Debt
As far as I am aware Scotland?s GDP per capita is broadly similar to UK as a whole, so whether it is done by population directly, or by GDP per capita the outcome would be similar. I don't think there have been any other proposals as to how it would realistically be split?

Broadly similar, yes. About £1,000 per year lower in Scotland. However, the problem Scotland has is the number of people who work for its public sector. One in three Scots works directly or indirectly for the public sector. That means that those employees are dependent on public sector spending. That money has to come from taxpayers. Scotland won't be able to manage its debt without cuts to the numbers of public sector workers and sector-dependent workers.

As Scotland pays more tax to Westminster than it recieves back I can't see how that would be an issue?

Re political influence

You misunderstood me. I understand that Scotland is probably over-represented in Westminster in terms of number of people per MP.

The fact is thought, that if the entire population of Scotland and all it's MPs wanted something that Westminster didn't want to give, by sheer weight of numbers the Scots would be outvoted.

A good example of this is the current Westminster government, virtually no one in Scotland wanted a Conservative government and now they are being governed by one.

I understand that in some ways the current system is more than fair, but in other ways it is grossly unfair as an entire nations views can be easily put aside.

ItsAllGoingToBeFine
As Scotland pays more tax to Westminster than it recieves back I can't see how that would be an issue?

From what I can see it's impossible to accurately calculate the amounts, and various methodologies have been tried. Those tried by the SNP or their supporters miraculously find that Scotland is a net contributor to the Union, those tried by everyone else find the reverse.

One of the issues you haven't considered is that when you go independent and become a full member of the EU you will be required to have the same corporation tax rate as every other EU nation. Tax harmonisation is accelerating. This means that your corporation tax will be higher than the UK's. What do you think the consequences of that will be?

'The whole reason some Scots want independence is the fact that Scott currently has no say as it does not have a high enough population to have any impact in a UK wide vote, eg General Elections. '

Scotland is actually over-represented, according to a number of independent analysts.

'A good example of this is the current Westminster government, virtually no one in Scotland wanted a Conservative government and now they are being governed by one. '

No they're not. They're being governed by a Coalition.

Historically, most people in England (by number) have NOT wanted a Labour government, but have had to put up with one.

Tbh flatpackhamster as you have said, the answers depend on who does the maths.

I think with all the economic stuff it'll be pretty much swings and roundabouts. If Scotland becoming Independant it will slightly economically disadvantage Scotland (and England) in some area, and be advantageous in others.

I have not yet seen any convincing arguments about it being massively advantageous or not.

Abra1d That doesn't make sense. If most people by number didn't want a labour government they wouldn't have got one. That is how first past the post works.

I am happy to be corrected though :-)

I also understand that it's a Coalition (in name at least) . I oversimplified to make the point that whatever Scotland /Wales/NI vote for makes no difference in the make up of Westminster (unless the English votes are very evenly split).

ItsAllGoingToBeFine

Abra1d That doesn't make sense. If most people by number didn't want a labour government they wouldn't have got one. That is how first past the post works.

I am happy to be corrected though :-)

It's not just the FPTP system, what it comes down to is the position of the constituency boundaries which has historically favoured Labour. Due to the current constituency boundaries Conservatives typically have to poll around 8% above Labour in order to produce a government.

I also understand that it's a Coalition (in name at least) . I oversimplified to make the point that whatever Scotland /Wales/NI vote for makes no difference in the make up of Westminster (unless the English votes are very evenly split).

I live in SE England, which has suffered 13 years of the Labour Jackboot even though it's 90% Conservative, so it goes both ways. And I'd like to remind you that Gordon Brown forced through legislation which affected only England (eg tuition fees) solely because he had access to Scottish Labour votes.

Surely EU membership etc would be for the people of Scotland to decide after independence?

jennypiccolo

I would guess so.

There is the question of whether Scots want to be in the EU. And if we do, the next question is whether or not they would have us :-)

flatpackhamster I guess there will always be problems with people feeling unrepresented in the family, in the town, in the country.

It does seem a tad foolish for an entire country to have no say.