Oh... For a moment there I thought you had postulated an opinion based on that article in relation to Scottish independence. As the article did not specify any alternative economic polices I figured you would have some on mind...


It seems I was wrong.

Regardless of factors implying a less than completely objective stance on the linked article (which article is not without a degree of bias, even academic ones?), it STILL carries much more water than yours...

You are doing it again. How are they badly planned. And badly implemented? What are the alternatives, and what do YOU think should happen?

OK so how are you referring to? I asked for any sane, respected economist who thinks that increasing spending is the way forwards and nobody has come up with one.

You seem to respect journalists simply because they can get things published, that's staggeringly naive, just because newspaper prints it doesn't make it true,

He's busy googling.

Well, maybe when he broaches a subject by linking an article, and making a statement, he should answer simple questions people post in response.

Okay, so this post instantly gains you respect as you're clearly knowledgeable in economics unlike many posters in this thread - and I include myself in that.

So put an objective hat on and share with us your thoughts on how credible an independent Scotland could be, from an economic point of view.

Yet again we see your number 1 reason for independance is to get away from the tories


God i hope you aren't the average Scottish voter

If you are

We're fked

I'm not after respect and certainly wouldn't expect any from posting on a web forum.

The economic negatives of independence have been done to death on here. Higher interest rates, capital flight, no control over currency, over-reliance on oil and so on.

The economic positives? Well out of the box there aren't any, in other words there is nothing about being independent that automatically puts Scotland into a better place.

The arguments in favour of independence from an economic perspective all lie in what a Scottish Government could do. For example it could adjust corporation tax rates to attract companies to Scotland. It could direct spending into areas that will help sectors of the economy develop, and so on. And of course changes in circumstances that impact Scotland would have a bigger effect - an obvious one being if you think oil revenues will rise then holding that all in Scotland would obviously benefit Scotland more than if it is for the whole UK.

In the context of the original post, of course an independent Scotland might be able to take an alternative path to the UK and not cut public spending, something on which the Guardian thinks that battalions of economists agree. However this is nonsense, an independent Scotland will already face higher interest rates and a Government that shows no understanding of the need to cut expenditure is one that is going to face problems borrowing. Independence is more likely to lead to higher cuts in public spending simply because of the need to contain borrowing costs.