Second referendum part 2

[Gighasmokedhalibutisawesome]

Any appetite for a continuance or have I missed the new thread?
There was quite a heated squabble respectful exchange of views so I am sure there is more to be said......

can't read that unless you're a subscriber unfortunately. Saying a case 'looks stronger' post Brexit is not the same as saying a case looks compelling. Given the case before was piss-poor, this looks like faint praise. Newspapers often have controversial opinions, as I said I'd want a considered view from a team of policy economists once all the facts are as known as they can be.

I mentioned the figures above as people on here say we voted pro indy parties in so the majority of the country want's indy. The figures kinda show that more people voted pro union parties.

I get that doesn't necessarily mean you would vote yes/no on the day. I mean my own MIL is a no voter and voted SNP. My husband voted Green but is a no voter. However I know both won't them again as they are not happy at another referendum being called.

Calyx we keep hearing slander about Barnett, that's scare mongering. Where is your evidence?

That's the new project fear is it? Holyrood is going to be abolished and/or Barnett is going to be abolished.

Well if Scotland was independent there would be no Barnett and you think it'll all be fine and dandy so what exactly are you worried about if Barnett is abolished?

Not that i believe it will be abolished just hypothetically.

nolottery Lord Owen was calling for Barnett to be scrapped, as was Gove at one point.

That's the new project fear is it? Holyrood is going to be abolished and/or Barnett is going to be abolished.

Well if Scotland was independent there would be no Barnett and you think it'll all be fine and dandy so what exactly are you worried about if Barnett is abolished?

Not that i believe it will be abolished just hypothetically.

please quote some IFS style sources from proper policy economists independent of party politics that say that abandoning the RUK tax payers funding of Scotland through the Barnett formula is a great idea for Scotland

No one has said it will be great for Scotland. Neutral-ish would be good. It's not about suddenly being a ridiculously rich country, it's about being to manage our finances ourselves to our own priorities. It is also worth noting that a future within in the UK is not looking particularly rosy either... Anyway according to this not-particularly-neutral source independence would not be an unmitigated disaster...

"An independent Scotland might have been able to negotiate a good deal on the share of the UK’s debt it took on. Lower debt would mean lower debt interest payments and would therefore reduce the budget deficit. However, it is worth noting that even if an independent Scotland had inherited none of the UK’s central government debt, its budget deficit would likely still be substantial: around 7.6% of national income (rather than 9.4%) in 2016-17 and 4.4% of national income (rather than 6.2%) in 2020-21 holding all other elements of our projections fixed.

Independence could affect Scottish economic performance. A weaker performance – which perhaps may be expected in the short term – would tend to push up Scotland’s deficit. But if, as the Scottish Government have previously claimed, independence would allow policies to grow the Scottish economy more quickly, such faster growth would tend to push up revenues and reduce Scotland’s deficit.

Independence would also, in principle, give the Scottish Government more freedom to tax and spend more or less, which could have implications for the Scottish budget deficit. In practice, however, if an independent Scotland faced a budget deficit anything like that in our projections, spending cuts or tax rises would be needed to put the public finances on a firmer footing"

Nolotterywin Barnett seems likely to be abolished post Brexit if Scotland's still in the UK.

Likely? Who in a senior position is calling for this? Do you have a link?

The figures kinda show that more people voted pro union parties.

Actually, they kinda don't...

Lord Barnett has said that maintaining Barnett as it stands, if Scotland were to get more power over its finances would be a "terrible mistake"

( I just googled that and got it from a guardian article)

So we would have to have tax rises or spending cuts. Given the snp have shied away from raising taxes where would you like to cut first in an independent Scotland?

IFS you are correct I had looked at the list votes.

I'm still a no though lol

That doesn't sound particularly promising to me Its. This unnamed source is still predicting spending cuts, tax rises, and a large budget deficit. And that's assuming that the Scottish economy grows quickly - I don't see a lot of evidence that that would be the case. Perhaps if the SNP put some effort into growing the economy with the tools they have already it would be a more convincing case..

Lone voices calling for an end to barnett aren't a policy, so this is scare-mongering. I'd imagine Ruth Davidson and Mundell would have a wee bit to say about that. There is no tory policy to end barnett - independence is the only definite, absolute 100% end to barnett funding in sight...

Lord Barnett died in 2014. I doubt he's going to be campaigning for the Barnett formula to be removed.

I would cut trident. And we would not be paying for London infrastructure etc. Or the HoL.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/14541780.BrexitshoulddendtheeBarnettFormulasayssLordOwen/

That's one article but there were others

I read a piece saying David Cameron would probably have kept Barnett post Brexit to stave off another referendum on independence but that TMay is unlikely to do this.

I would just prefer we didn't have a vote till we see exactly how Brexit pans out.

Even a yes in 2014 would have seen us leave the EU to the reapply. I have no doubt the EU would accept an I Scoland though on what terms is anyone's guess.

I get they had it in their manifesto to hold another referendum but now is not the time I for one want to have every bit of info available to me, it's a huge decision far more than Brexit if I am honest.

I would cut trident. And we would not be paying for London infrastructure etc. Or the HoL.

This reminds me - the issue of the second chamber. How do people feel about the lack of checks and balances in the Scottish system as it stands (and some of the god-awful legislation that was forced through as a result)? Would we need to set up a second chamber?

not an unmitigated disaster - is that the test? And this is only not an unmitigated disaster based on one view. This bit:

In practice, however, if an independent Scotland faced a budget deficit anything like that in our projections, spending cuts or tax rises would be needed to put the public finances on a firmer footing.

Where do I sign for spending cuts and tax rises? Me me!!

That doesn't sound particularly promising to me Its. This unnamed source is still predicting spending cuts, tax rises, and a large budget deficit

No. But it is doable. I'm still not quite what it is that makes Scotland uniquely unqualified to be an independent country. Incidentally that was an IFS quote which many indy supporters would say are biased, I can find more positive quotes, but I suspect they would not be accepted

Incidentally, this is what the IFS had to say on Brexit. I'm not sure they think an indy Scotland would be worse off than Brexit UK...

"In the short run, our estimates therefore suggest that the overall effect of Brexit would be to damage the public finances. On the basis of estimates by NIESR, the effect could be between £20 billion and £40 billion in 2019–20, more than enough to wipe out the planned surplus. In the long run, lower GDP would likely mean lower cash levels of public spending.

To put this in context, dealing with the public finance effect would require at least an additional one or two years of ‘austerity’ – spending cuts or tax rises – at the same rate as we have experienced recently to get the public finances back to balance (should that remain the government’s priority). Following this path would also mean government debt remaining higher than otherwise, and additional debt interest payments."

But if, as the Scottish Government have previously claimed, independence would allow policies to grow the Scottish economy more quickly, such faster growth would tend to push up revenues and reduce Scotland’s deficit.
What are those policies? If we could do in in an independent Scotland maybe we could do it with one in the Union too? Why can't we? rUK could do with extra revenue - having to spend less on Scotland's deficit. I can't see WM doing anything to reduce Scottish growth or not introduce something that would be likely to increase growth - maybe we could already have been doing it?

i'd love to see evidence of why independence supporters think the IFS is biased, that's amazing to me. They are policy academics. Just because you can say someone is biased, that doesn't make it true, i hate this argument by assertion - you can assert anyone is biased but where is the evidence?

Its it's very clear the IFS think that Scotland is getting an incredibly good deal from the barnett formula. We'll have to wait and see about the specific question when we have a clearer picture of the brexit deal after the negotiations.

Have the IMF done a comparative analysis of the challenges facing a post-Brexit UK and an independent Scotland? That would make interesting reading.

I actually don't think Scotland is uniquely unqualified to be independent ever, but it's only realistic to say that we're in a very weak position to do it now (I wouldn't want to anyway, but that's another argument). Our economy needs to improve massively to make it feasible - I don't think it's good enough to just hope everything falls into place afterwards, especially as it will be the vulnerable who lose out the most in these things.