Scottish Referendum / Independence - Vol 5
Discussion
Piersman2 said:
For these costings... are they using the same set of estimating tools as were used for Holyrood where the initial estimate of £40M eventually topped out at a published actual cost of £400+M? 
Why? Is Holyrood the only project to ever experience cost overrun?Building projects, as well as technology and infrastructure projects, often experience cost overrun. C'est la vie.
Perhaps it's "the same set of estimating tools" which was used for the Channel Tunnel?
Troubleatmill said:
Edinburger said:
Troubleatmill said:
Edinburger said:
This is interesting - article below details estimated start-up costs for an independent Scotland could reach £2.5bn, plus the creation of new currency at £2bn, plus £12bn p.a. "to fill the gap between its existing public spending and taxes raised in country" (I won't mention that we don't actually know the exact level taxes raised in Scotland...
Full article below:
Start-up costs for independent Scotland could reach £2.5bn
The Centre for Business and Economic Research estimated start-up costs for an independent Scotland could reach £2.5bn, more than 10 times the figure set out by first minister Alex Salmond.
Great divergence has already emerged surrounding the costs of setting up an independent Scotland. The UK Treasury puts the total cost at £1.5bn while the Scottish Government, which opted not to publish figures required to go independent, has argued that breaking away from the UK will cost just £250m.
But a CEBR report commissioned by the Sunday Times has estimated it could cost Scotland up to £2.5bn to become an independent country.
Key figures in the report include £1bn required for creating new tax and welfare systems.The set-up of new government departments such as the Scottish foreign office is likely to cost around £450m, according to the report.
Scotland would also have to borrow around £12bn a year, the report says, or opt to raise taxes or drastically cut spending in order to fill the gap between its existing public spending and taxes raised in country.
The possibility that Scotland may have to create its own currency, which the report believes is the most likely long-term solution for Scotland’s currency along with joining the euro, would result in a “huge” one-off cost of £2bn for Scottish taxpayers on top of the £2.5bn figure.
The alternative option of sharing the pound in a formal currency union would require “fairly painless set-up costs”, according to the report.
Unilaterally using the pound would result in “comparatively insignificant costs” too, the report adds, although this is only likely to be a temporary solution before the country is forced to create its own currency or adopt the euro.
CEBR economist and author of the report Sam Alderson argues establishing an independent Scotland “isn’t going to be cheap” but desrcibes these costs as “manageable.”
He says: “The figure of £2.4bn, whilst it is large, represents less than 2 per cent of Scottish GDP and will not fall upon a newly formed government in one lump sum but will be spread across the best part of a decade.
“It is likely the costs involved in establishing the bodies, systems, processes and so on required to function as an independent state will eventually be recouped because of cost savings that could be produced through eliminating the costs arising from the complexities involved across various UK systems - savings incurred because of the more simple process of managing a smaller state and significant savings in areas such as defence.”
Source: http://www.moneymarketing.co.uk/news-and-analysis/...
Ed- Did you read that bit in bold?Full article below:
Start-up costs for independent Scotland could reach £2.5bn
The Centre for Business and Economic Research estimated start-up costs for an independent Scotland could reach £2.5bn, more than 10 times the figure set out by first minister Alex Salmond.
Great divergence has already emerged surrounding the costs of setting up an independent Scotland. The UK Treasury puts the total cost at £1.5bn while the Scottish Government, which opted not to publish figures required to go independent, has argued that breaking away from the UK will cost just £250m.
But a CEBR report commissioned by the Sunday Times has estimated it could cost Scotland up to £2.5bn to become an independent country.
Key figures in the report include £1bn required for creating new tax and welfare systems.The set-up of new government departments such as the Scottish foreign office is likely to cost around £450m, according to the report.
Scotland would also have to borrow around £12bn a year, the report says, or opt to raise taxes or drastically cut spending in order to fill the gap between its existing public spending and taxes raised in country.
The possibility that Scotland may have to create its own currency, which the report believes is the most likely long-term solution for Scotland’s currency along with joining the euro, would result in a “huge” one-off cost of £2bn for Scottish taxpayers on top of the £2.5bn figure.
The alternative option of sharing the pound in a formal currency union would require “fairly painless set-up costs”, according to the report.
Unilaterally using the pound would result in “comparatively insignificant costs” too, the report adds, although this is only likely to be a temporary solution before the country is forced to create its own currency or adopt the euro.
CEBR economist and author of the report Sam Alderson argues establishing an independent Scotland “isn’t going to be cheap” but desrcibes these costs as “manageable.”
He says: “The figure of £2.4bn, whilst it is large, represents less than 2 per cent of Scottish GDP and will not fall upon a newly formed government in one lump sum but will be spread across the best part of a decade.
“It is likely the costs involved in establishing the bodies, systems, processes and so on required to function as an independent state will eventually be recouped because of cost savings that could be produced through eliminating the costs arising from the complexities involved across various UK systems - savings incurred because of the more simple process of managing a smaller state and significant savings in areas such as defence.”
Source: http://www.moneymarketing.co.uk/news-and-analysis/...
Do you remember our discussion about Swinney and cutting benefits and defence?
Edited by Troubleatmill on Monday 1st September 21:17
fluffnik said:
HenryJM said:
But Scotland only gets independence with the agreement of the UK so it is anticipated that Scotland would have to take on a portion of the debt, committing to pay it to the UK, in order for Scotland to get independence.
The reconvened Scottish Parliament merely has to repeal the Act of Union and the UK ceases.This could be problematic for England( incorporating Wales) with Northern Ireland¹, as it currently has no parliament...
¹NI's status is a complete mystery, the Kingdom of Ireland ceased to exist in 1949/1962 and it's not in either the Kingdom of England( incorporating Wales) nor the Kingdom of Scotland.
The Scottish parliament has ZERO powers to repeal the Act of Union.
Edinburger said:
Troubleatmill said:
Edinburger said:
Troubleatmill said:
Edinburger said:
This is interesting - article below details estimated start-up costs for an independent Scotland could reach £2.5bn, plus the creation of new currency at £2bn, plus £12bn p.a. "to fill the gap between its existing public spending and taxes raised in country" (I won't mention that we don't actually know the exact level taxes raised in Scotland...
Full article below:
Start-up costs for independent Scotland could reach £2.5bn
The Centre for Business and Economic Research estimated start-up costs for an independent Scotland could reach £2.5bn, more than 10 times the figure set out by first minister Alex Salmond.
Great divergence has already emerged surrounding the costs of setting up an independent Scotland. The UK Treasury puts the total cost at £1.5bn while the Scottish Government, which opted not to publish figures required to go independent, has argued that breaking away from the UK will cost just £250m.
But a CEBR report commissioned by the Sunday Times has estimated it could cost Scotland up to £2.5bn to become an independent country.
Key figures in the report include £1bn required for creating new tax and welfare systems.The set-up of new government departments such as the Scottish foreign office is likely to cost around £450m, according to the report.
Scotland would also have to borrow around £12bn a year, the report says, or opt to raise taxes or drastically cut spending in order to fill the gap between its existing public spending and taxes raised in country.
The possibility that Scotland may have to create its own currency, which the report believes is the most likely long-term solution for Scotland’s currency along with joining the euro, would result in a “huge” one-off cost of £2bn for Scottish taxpayers on top of the £2.5bn figure.
The alternative option of sharing the pound in a formal currency union would require “fairly painless set-up costs”, according to the report.
Unilaterally using the pound would result in “comparatively insignificant costs” too, the report adds, although this is only likely to be a temporary solution before the country is forced to create its own currency or adopt the euro.
CEBR economist and author of the report Sam Alderson argues establishing an independent Scotland “isn’t going to be cheap” but desrcibes these costs as “manageable.”
He says: “The figure of £2.4bn, whilst it is large, represents less than 2 per cent of Scottish GDP and will not fall upon a newly formed government in one lump sum but will be spread across the best part of a decade.
“It is likely the costs involved in establishing the bodies, systems, processes and so on required to function as an independent state will eventually be recouped because of cost savings that could be produced through eliminating the costs arising from the complexities involved across various UK systems - savings incurred because of the more simple process of managing a smaller state and significant savings in areas such as defence.”
Source: http://www.moneymarketing.co.uk/news-and-analysis/...
Ed- Did you read that bit in bold?Full article below:
Start-up costs for independent Scotland could reach £2.5bn
The Centre for Business and Economic Research estimated start-up costs for an independent Scotland could reach £2.5bn, more than 10 times the figure set out by first minister Alex Salmond.
Great divergence has already emerged surrounding the costs of setting up an independent Scotland. The UK Treasury puts the total cost at £1.5bn while the Scottish Government, which opted not to publish figures required to go independent, has argued that breaking away from the UK will cost just £250m.
But a CEBR report commissioned by the Sunday Times has estimated it could cost Scotland up to £2.5bn to become an independent country.
Key figures in the report include £1bn required for creating new tax and welfare systems.The set-up of new government departments such as the Scottish foreign office is likely to cost around £450m, according to the report.
Scotland would also have to borrow around £12bn a year, the report says, or opt to raise taxes or drastically cut spending in order to fill the gap between its existing public spending and taxes raised in country.
The possibility that Scotland may have to create its own currency, which the report believes is the most likely long-term solution for Scotland’s currency along with joining the euro, would result in a “huge” one-off cost of £2bn for Scottish taxpayers on top of the £2.5bn figure.
The alternative option of sharing the pound in a formal currency union would require “fairly painless set-up costs”, according to the report.
Unilaterally using the pound would result in “comparatively insignificant costs” too, the report adds, although this is only likely to be a temporary solution before the country is forced to create its own currency or adopt the euro.
CEBR economist and author of the report Sam Alderson argues establishing an independent Scotland “isn’t going to be cheap” but desrcibes these costs as “manageable.”
He says: “The figure of £2.4bn, whilst it is large, represents less than 2 per cent of Scottish GDP and will not fall upon a newly formed government in one lump sum but will be spread across the best part of a decade.
“It is likely the costs involved in establishing the bodies, systems, processes and so on required to function as an independent state will eventually be recouped because of cost savings that could be produced through eliminating the costs arising from the complexities involved across various UK systems - savings incurred because of the more simple process of managing a smaller state and significant savings in areas such as defence.”
Source: http://www.moneymarketing.co.uk/news-and-analysis/...
Do you remember our discussion about Swinney and cutting benefits and defence?
Edited by Troubleatmill on Monday 1st September 21:17
But - seriously. Scotland's debt is circa £100 Billion ( or maybe £150 Billion ) - but let's use the lower number.
iScotland will double that to £200 Billion in around 8 and 1/2 years - unless something gives.
The secret Swinney report that said - cut benefits - The one you said was no longer relevant - seems to be very pertinent.
What do you think?
fluffnik said:
The reconvened Scottish Parliament merely has to repeal the Act of Union and the UK ceases.
This could be problematic for England( incorporating Wales) with Northern Ireland¹, as it currently has no parliament...
They don't have legislative competence to do that. The Scotland Act 1998 reserves legislative competence over the Union entirely for Westminster. Scotland doesn't have the power to repeal it.This could be problematic for England( incorporating Wales) with Northern Ireland¹, as it currently has no parliament...
¹NI's status is a complete mystery, the Kingdom of Ireland ceased to exist in 1949/1962 and it's not in either the Kingdom of England( incorporating Wales) nor the Kingdom of Scotland.
Edinburger said:
Piersman2 said:
For these costings... are they using the same set of estimating tools as were used for Holyrood where the initial estimate of £40M eventually topped out at a published actual cost of £400+M?
Why? Is Holyrood the only project to ever experience cost overrun?Building projects, as well as technology and infrastructure projects, often experience cost overrun. C'est la vie.
Perhaps it's "the same set of estimating tools" which was used for the Channel Tunnel?
Holyrood didn't need to be anything near as extravagant as it was, it was a vanity project for the MSPs; easy when you're spending other people's money I guess. £400+M spent on something resembling a child's drawing. Staggering, and a mere taste of what's to come if the Yessers get any where near the real purse strings.
Edinburger said:
Beefy
It doesn't "totally destroy" anything. To me, it's probably the most realistic projection I've read.
Really?It doesn't "totally destroy" anything. To me, it's probably the most realistic projection I've read.
SNP state its around £250m
Most realistic expectation £2.5billion - 10x more .... Id consider that to be pretty demonstrable as taking apart the SNP point especially as its much closer to the Pro No.
Also Salmond literally LOL at FMQs when Torys were banging on about what it will cost at least £2nillion he laughed oh yea he did then his crooners joined in too literally crying with laughter. Egg on face?
Axionknight said:
Salmond doesn't care about the old egg on his face situation because the idiots voting for his half baked plan wouldn't listen to these figures if you painted 'em on the side of their house in giant red text.
But he has two FMQs inbetween so logically he is going to be taken apart in those debatesfluffnik said:
The reconvened Scottish Parliament merely has to repeal the Act of Union and the UK ceases.
This could be problematic for England( incorporating Wales) with Northern Ireland¹, as it currently has no parliament...
Gosh not this clap trap again. You know Scotland as a nation has the power to do the sum total of fThis could be problematic for England( incorporating Wales) with Northern Ireland¹, as it currently has no parliament...
¹NI's status is a complete mystery, the Kingdom of Ireland ceased to exist in 1949/1962 and it's not in either the Kingdom of England( incorporating Wales) nor the Kingdom of Scotland.
k all.1) population 5m ergo no one gives a s
t about you2) financial sector owned by the UK government ergo no one gives a s
t about you3) major exports on the whole owned by foreign companies ergo no one gives a s
t4) ship building offered at a preferential rate as part of the UK so leave and ergo no one gives a s
t 4) GDP circa 9% of the UK or rather a small amount compared to say London ergo no one gives a s
t.5) film media TV music nothing amazing ergo no one gives a s
t.6) fishing grounds unprotected by amateurish suggested navy ergo no one gives a s
t if you threaten a blockade. So tell me what can Scotland do to the rest of the union...
Edinburger said:
Troubleatmill said:
Edinburger said:
Troubleatmill said:
Edinburger said:
This is interesting - article below details estimated start-up costs for an independent Scotland could reach £2.5bn, plus the creation of new currency at £2bn, plus £12bn p.a. "to fill the gap between its existing public spending and taxes raised in country" (I won't mention that we don't actually know the exact level taxes raised in Scotland...
Ed- Did you read that bit in bold?Do you remember our discussion about Swinney and cutting benefits and defence?
Edited by Troubleatmill on Monday 1st September 21:17
With these numbers (sort of) agreeing with the "no" side (I know their numbers were less pessimistic than this report but you know what I mean), does it sway your thinking surrounding other "yes" numbers?
If it's £10bn or £12bn, it's a big hole to fill in, and that money has to come from cuts, taxes, or a combination of the two. I've not heard too much in the way of concrete cuts or taxes from "yes" though - although I'll be happy to be proved wrong.
davepoth said:
It was a bit silly. You've brought what appears to be a reasonable article and so I think it does really deserve a bit of a reasonable debate.
With these numbers (sort of) agreeing with the "no" side (I know their numbers were less pessimistic than this report but you know what I mean), does it sway your thinking surrounding other "yes" numbers?
If it's £10bn or £12bn, it's a big hole to fill in, and that money has to come from cuts, taxes, or a combination of the two. I've not heard too much in the way of concrete cuts or taxes from "yes" though - although I'll be happy to be proved wrong.
I keep asking this question what is going to be cut on day 1? No answers. With these numbers (sort of) agreeing with the "no" side (I know their numbers were less pessimistic than this report but you know what I mean), does it sway your thinking surrounding other "yes" numbers?
If it's £10bn or £12bn, it's a big hole to fill in, and that money has to come from cuts, taxes, or a combination of the two. I've not heard too much in the way of concrete cuts or taxes from "yes" though - although I'll be happy to be proved wrong.
Why don't the no campaign smash in Salmojds back doors on this basic and very key point.
Welshbeef said:
I keep asking this question what is going to be cut on day 1? No answers.
Why don't the no campaign smash in Salmojds back doors on this basic and very key point.
Why don't the no campaign smash in Salmojds back doors on this basic and very key point.
How can anyone answer your question when nobody knows what the figures will be? It has already been stated by the SNP that Scotland would be run in a fiscal deficit like the rUK.
Welshbeef said:
Sky news just reporting the latest poll results - 53% No 47% yes a 7% increase for the Yes campaign and now only a 3% swing.
Holy st this really could happen!
Maybe this short lead will encourage all the Nos to come out and vote or some Nos to think actually let's do it.
Holy s
t this really could happen!Maybe this short lead will encourage all the Nos to come out and vote or some Nos to think actually let's do it.
That doesn't include the large % of undecided voters, who historically turn out to be no voters in these referendums.
There still hasn't been one poll with the yes camp in front.
el stovey said:
How can anyone answer your question when nobody knows what the figures will be? It has already been stated by the SNP that Scotland would be run in a fiscal deficit like the rUK.
RUK? Um nope they have just walked away from £150billion debt so we would never lend them anything again, um frankly Scotland if they did that would be vastly worse than Argentina and they cannot borrow anything nor have they for 20years..
So yes they really do know it has to be cut.
el stovey said:
Welshbeef said:
Sky news just reporting the latest poll results - 53% No 47% yes a 7% increase for the Yes campaign and now only a 3% swing.
Holy st this really could happen!
Maybe this short lead will encourage all the Nos to come out and vote or some Nos to think actually let's do it.
Holy s
t this really could happen!Maybe this short lead will encourage all the Nos to come out and vote or some Nos to think actually let's do it.
That doesn't include the large % of undecided voters, who historically turn out to be no voters in these referendums.
There still hasn't been one poll with the yes camp in front.
Note 1million have not registered to vote I'd wager most are undecideds or refuse to vote or inept people.
So its really concerning.
Is Braveheart going to be on STV the night before the vote?
Welshbeef said:
But how? Who will lend them the money?
RUK? Um nope they have just walked away from £150billion debt so we would never lend them anything again, um frankly Scotland if they did that would be vastly worse than Argentina and they cannot borrow anything nor have they for 20years..
So yes they really do know it has to be cut.
RUK? Um nope they have just walked away from £150billion debt so we would never lend them anything again, um frankly Scotland if they did that would be vastly worse than Argentina and they cannot borrow anything nor have they for 20years..
So yes they really do know it has to be cut.
But you don't know what cuts will be needed as you or I can't predict what deals would be made and what the financial situation will be leading up to independence (not that it will ever happen).
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff