Can someone please explain why UK is trying to keep Scotland?

[Kellymum]

I am a bit confused. Scotland has been told from the start of the Referendum campaign that it cannot stand on its own two feet and will be worse off without the UK but surely then the rest of the UK will be BETTER OFF without Scotland?
I lived in London for 4 years and the general consensus was that Scotland was heavily subsidized by the rest of the UK. Again why? This does not seem fair to other parts of the UK. I keep hearing now from some people in England that Scotland should not get further preferential treatment. Why does Scotland get preferential treatment?
Again, if Scotland went independent, the "so called" money that has been used to subsidise them would then be redirected back to the rest of the UK. Why do they (Westminster) want to carry a dead horse?! Why oh why is Westminster so determined to keep Scotland that it has used its might through the media and corporations to not let Scotland go. It makes no sense to me. I work in business and the basic principle of business is to keep your assets and get rid of your liabilities!!! The pound should soar when Scotland is gone from the UK as a huge amount of debt would be gone? Why are the politicians sending every MP possible to woo them back? It is clear that Scotland must have something that Westminster wants. What do you think?

Bumpy .... so a 110% raise in Council Tax and raising Stamp Duty in 1997 from a Flat 1% by Labour was fairer to family homes, far more plentiful than rich people living alone, no doubt just counting their money?

If memory serves, before Thatcher came in, the basic rate of income tax was around 32%, the higher rate started in the mid 60%, tax on the income from investments was in the mid 90%'s and if any company dared make a profit, they paid 50% in Corporate Tax.

Yet funny old world, the Poll tax, the Labour politicians chose to march for as had sod all else to offer the country, not the lowering of everyones taxes, is STILL mentioned by the Scotland to this day.

Currently the 'bedroom tax' as a blunt emergency policy to free up around 820,000 unused council/social housing bedrooms for the 1.7 million families (5 million individuals) needing social housing by 2010 floats the socialist boats that CAUSED a social housing problem, but no one mentions that, do they.

I teach economics at a university so I apologise if this seems like me trying to lecture people. I actually see costs and benefits in both a Yes and a No vote even though I have weighed it up and think No is better for the country and my family.

The real problem with this argument is that the economy is more complicated than just a debate about whether Scotland subsidises or is subsidised by the rest of the UK. It's not as though we have a certain amount of money and chopping the country in two will simply give one bit more money than they have now. The real point in the UK is that it's supposed to be in everyone's interest and that's largely true in my opinion whether one bit pays more than it receives in spending. Getting rid of it will likely make us both a bit worse off at least in the short-term.

The subsidy question is quite difficult to answer but using the Scottish government's figures we can make a good stab at it. Basically, in the days before we had hit peak oil production, it would have probably been correct to say the oil (which is mostly - over 90% - in Scotland's territory) would have "subsidised" the rest of the UK. However today and in the future this is a somewhat different picture. Last year, for instance, the Scottish government's figures (with oil included) showed Scotland generated around 9.1% of UK taxation revenue but received around 9.3% of UK spending. So it was getting more in spending than it put in during that one year. In previous years however the trend was usually the opposite.

We can expect this from now on to hover around where it is now for perhaps another 15 or so years - with perhaps in some years Scotland generating more than it receives and in other years generating less. After this the oil production is projected to decline quite sharply after 2030 (so about 14 years after independence) at which point unless there is another discovery of oil, Scotland would be generating quite a lot less UK taxation revenue than it currently receives in spending. If you look at the last 10 years or so Scotland has consistently generated about 8.3% of UK taxation revenue (without oil) and received around 9.3% of UK spending. So after 2030 that situation would be a very good deal for Scotland.

This is what the politicians don't tell you. The No side doesn't want to admit that in the past Scotland generated more than it received in spending, but the Yes side doesn't want to tell you that in the future, when oil declines, the figures don't really add up. As we can't rerun the 1980s/1990s as an independent country that leads me to vote No.

There would be some short-term problems (the currency, the market reaction, businesses relocating from uncertainty and so on) that I think we would get over eventually, but by then when the oil declines (and we only have about 14 years until the point it starts falling quickly) it really is hard to see it making us better off than we are now. I think we can get most of the benefits without the risks just by voting No - I know some people don't trust Westminster (I'm one of them) but I think really looking at the figures it's the best option for me.

The trident programme is just one of the headaches (and a very serious one).

The UK government would be tied up for years in the legal wrangling and bitter arguments about asset splitting and then it will cost billions to implement all the changes. This will impact on the time spent running the country. Its will be the ruin of Scotland and will negatively impact the rest of the UK just as we're getting back on our feet. The pound is already being impacted. The rest of the world are looking at us thinking we've gone mad.

There's been claims & counterclaims. It's so hard for the average person on the street to know who is telling the truth.

The facts that stick in my mind the most are that Alex Salmond was utterly convinced Scotland would automatically join the EU. Same with NATO. Oh and not long before the recent financial crisis, not only were the SNP doggedly against NATO, they were pro joining the Euro. Now it seems he accepts that Scotland will need to reapply to both and of course changed their stance on the latter. So from my point of view if they're wrong about such important matters, what else haven't they worked out properly and could be wrong on?

Their entire economic case rests on oil prices being high. Most people accept this is a very optimistic figure.

But.

Economics aside ultimately it comes down to emotions. Like a couple considering divorce, how successful you may be in the future is rarely the most important deciding factor. My point is if Scotland hates England that much now that it's willing to chuck away a union that's spanned 300 years, survived two world wars and many other stuff because they could get a Tory government then that to me is just incredibly short sighted.

However, like anyone who goes through a divorce will tell you, you don't get everything you want and long term financially you will both be worse off.

And that's where my main problem with the yes campaign lies. They're busy telling everyone that it will be jam today and jam tomorrow. Yet they're not explaining how on earth they will get everything on this HUGE wishlist.

Practical things like how do you convince 28 other countries to let you join the EU when for example Spain will be worried that it will encourage Catalonia. How do you convince Latvia/Estonia to let you in when you don't want to adopt the Euro. A currency they've had to implement to join the club. How do you convince NATO to let you in when you don't want to spend enough money to meet the 2% minimum spend of GDP on defence?

And anytime the no campaign try to call out these things, they just dismiss it with the 'scaremongering/bullying' line.

Oh and on banks. Much has been made of banks redomiciling to rUK. The yes camp say this is just a paper exercise and not many jobs will be lost. The thing they don't say is "....at first".

To redomicile a company to the UK, the directors and treasury functions must tax resident in that country. So imagine you're the chief exec, financial director, whatever director of a major bank. You move to London. It's not a big deal. You're paid silly money anyway. You carry on working and your main office is still in Scotland. It's a bit of an arse but not the end of the world. Except 6 months later someone you work on a daily basis with resigns and you need to replace them. Do you recruit the replacement in Scotland? Or think "Oooh, i'll recruit someone in London. There's plenty of talent here, it's the financial hub of the world and they'll be able to work in the same office!"

Most sane people would do the latter. And that's the problem. Over time jobs will trickle to London. Of course the yes camp will say I'm scaremongering and there's no evidence of that, just like everything else that is much more likely to happen than high oil prices and never ending North Sea Oil.

Simple really:

1. Following the so-called "Highland Clearances" (polite term for "ethnic cleansing" of Gaelic-speaking inhabitants), English aristos stole (sorry, "acquired") lots of large holiday castles and estates in Scotland. They want to hold on to these large estates. You would too - they're beautiful places.

1. Oil - Scottish oil kept the UK financially afloat from the 1970s. It's in decline now, or so we're repeatedly told by Unionists. Industry insiders dispute the Unionist doom and gloom merchants: www.scotsman.com/business/north-sea-oil-industry-will-recover-in-5-years-ian-wood-1-4036757 London knows this and does not wish to let go of such an important asset.

1. Without Scotland, the term 'UK' becomes a bit daft, and losing this very right-wing, monarchist national descriptor would upset many Unionists.

1. Strategic military importance in any renewed cold war. England has important military bases in Scotland. She'd obviously prefer to keep them.

It's therefore for solid economic and military reasons which all benefit England. The English love Scotland the territory; they're not that bothered about the Scots, whom they mostly hold in good-natured contempt (apart from house-trained Scots like Norman Lamont or Gove, who culturally and accent-wise are long since English).

Zombie zombie zombie zombie

In my view the UK has nothing to do with it. Scotland is trying to keep scotland in the UK.

Only eats toast...

What's in you heeeeaaaad, in your heeeeaaaad

Currently North Sea Oil is costing money to produce and there is a gigantic bill for decommissioning coming down the line.

ZOMBIE

ZOMBIE

ZOMBIE

.

Hi, its very simple. Since 1975 all of Scotlands oil revenues have stayed in England, and continue to remain there with its oil revenues underwriting the English Pound Sterling. Without Scotlands oil money, Electricity, Export revenues, Whisky Taxes (the list is huge) England will struggle to meet its balance of payments. Former British Chancellor Dennis Healy said 'Westminster are worried stiff about losing the oil...' So its purely financial, they dont care about Scotland other than the fact that they really need its money. Even its vast water supply.

How far do you go? With the silly subsidy argument?

Should London cut off the rest of England?

Because the people of Scotland voted to remain part of the UK and as British citizens have a right to have their democratic views respected.

Double zombie thread!!!!!

ZOMBIE THREAD!
Seven years old, FFS. And yet so contemporary.

Isn't it the norm that any country tries to hang on to its holdings?

@Iggly

How far do you go? With the silly subsidy argument?

Should London cut off the rest of England?

sufficient for. Basically under the guise of the Uk England stole all of Scotlands money and used it to rebuild London, and much of England infrastructure. Meanwhile the Scottish dont even have a decent road between Glasgow and Inverness-shire. Scotland also has most of the Uk's drinking water, something England is running out of.

Not so fast, Scotland basically OWNS England. England has been subsidised by Scottish oil money since 1975 (and by subsidised I mean they've been stealing it) Now with 2Trillion of debt and rising Scotland will leave and take its oil, gas, electricity and water with it. Not to mention all the tax revenue for the whisky industry, valued at over 1 Billion annually. You cant blame the Scots though. Dragged out of the Eu against their country's will.

Scotland is a country NOT a 'holding' or England. Thats the problem.

Basically under the guise of the Uk England stole all of Scotlands money and used it to rebuild London, and much of England infrastructure. Meanwhile the Scottish dont even have a decent road between Glasgow and Inverness-shire. Scotland also has most of the Uk's drinking water, something England is running out of.

Yes they did, because they were conned into it like England was for Brexit. Another referendum is coming in 2023 according to their country's leader. I think the British Government are terrified of the Scottish leaving.

Actually, the 'Subsidy' question is a very simple one to answer really. Read Professor Gavin McCrones 1975 'McCrone Report' -was top secret for 25 years. You'll see very clearly that Scotland had all its wealth taken by England.

Correct.

Scotland has never had preferential treatment, even before 1975. Its England that is subsidised, not Scotland. Think about it; The Uk Government wont even subsidise a spare bedroom for an Unemployed person, -you really think theyre going to subsidise an entire country? Scotlands money saved the UK from bankruptcy. All of this has come to light in the last 16 years or so, because they hushed it up.