Scotland after the vote
Discussion
Moonhawk said:
arp1 said:
Based on the swathes of austerity cuts westminister is hell bent on doing, how on earth could Scotland be worse off than that??
Setting up an independent country is likely to be massively expensive. So you have to deal with the paying off debt and getting public spending under control (things that the austerity measures are currently trying to deal with).......those things aren't magically going to disappear on "independence day" and will still have to be dealt with in some manner.
Add to this the cost of setting up iScotland (how many hundred-million/billion?)
......and that's before you factor in any increase in ongoing costs due to the reduced economies of scale, possible reduction in credit rating which would increase borrowing costs etc
ks really, we will find out on the 19th 
arp1 said:
Moonhawk said:
arp1 said:
Based on the swathes of austerity cuts westminister is hell bent on doing, how on earth could Scotland be worse off than that??
Setting up an independent country is likely to be massively expensive. So you have to deal with the paying off debt and getting public spending under control (things that the austerity measures are currently trying to deal with).......those things aren't magically going to disappear on "independence day" and will still have to be dealt with in some manner.
Add to this the cost of setting up iScotland (how many hundred-million/billion?)
......and that's before you factor in any increase in ongoing costs due to the reduced economies of scale, possible reduction in credit rating which would increase borrowing costs etc
ks really, we will find out on the 19th 
arp1 said:
It's still all guess work, anyone thinking otherwise is delusional,
It may be guesswork to a point - but you can put reasonable estimates on things. Just look how much projects like Holyrood etc have cost - then think 'countrywide'.arp1 said:
so for all the amateur economists on here, it's all conjecture and bks really, we will find out on the 19th
Actually you won't.......you'll find out about 5+ years post independence, once all the departments are set up, all the inevitable cost over runs have been factored..........and crucially - once its far too late to do anything about it.ks really, we will find out on the 19th 
Axionknight said:
pcvdriver said:
Irrelevant in the scheme of things.....Devolved power can be withdrawn at a whim and there have been plenty of veiled threats that this will be the case if we vote no....
How is the amount of powers Holyrood have control over currently irrelevant? Is it because the yes campaign bleat about the Scottish NHS suffering under big bad Tory rule (even though we have a coalition Government in Westminster), yet it is actually devolved, for example?So what I'm basically suggesting, is that its irrelevant because the yes campaign cant lie and bluster about it and get away with it?
arp1 said:
Moonhawk said:
arp1 said:
Based on the swathes of austerity cuts westminister is hell bent on doing, how on earth could Scotland be worse off than that??
Setting up an independent country is likely to be massively expensive. So you have to deal with the paying off debt and getting public spending under control (things that the austerity measures are currently trying to deal with).......those things aren't magically going to disappear on "independence day" and will still have to be dealt with in some manner.
Add to this the cost of setting up iScotland (how many hundred-million/billion?)
......and that's before you factor in any increase in ongoing costs due to the reduced economies of scale, possible reduction in credit rating which would increase borrowing costs etc
ks really, we will find out on the 19th How will the Scottish government avoid austerity if this turns out to be the case?
Walford said:
Irrelevant, Irrelevant, One of the many things an independent country must have is a currency and a central bank, this is the basis of controlling the money supply, and balancing growth against inflation and also controlling dept, the yes campain is ball####cks
We have a currency - it's called the Pound. Ok there is some debate over how long we'll continue to use it for. As for a lender of last resort, the reason we don't have one, is we haven't required one, as quite sensibly a country doesn't need TWO lenders of last resort - does it now? How it will be set up - is a matter for discussion and negotiation between Westminster and Holyrood.AstonZagato said:
Does it not worry you in the slightest that the majority of economists (and virtually every economist who is not being paid by the SNP) is predicting that Scotland will have a more difficult time succeeding economically with independence than without?
How will the Scottish government avoid austerity if this turns out to be the case?
Q. How many of you have ever set up your own business? How will the Scottish government avoid austerity if this turns out to be the case?
Q. It's tough in the beginning isn't it?
Q. But it's worth it in the long run isn't it?
A. Yes
A. Yes
A. Yes
If you're answering Yes to the last question - then I'd suggest that deep down in your heart you know it's going to be good for Scotland in the long run. Stop thinking short-term profits for yourself and start thinking long-term prosperity for your children and their children.
pcvdriver said:
I'm well aware of the numbers of our representatives. I ask you what is better - to be able to change 9% (at the very most) of what you disagree with, or to have the potential to change 100% of what you disagree with. I know which option I'd choose.
If you can change 9%of our representatives I suggest that you have approximately 60 times the number of votes I do. In which case you're already better if than you think, or committing massive electoral fraud. pcvdriver said:
We have a currency - it's called the Pound. Ok there is some debate over how long we'll continue to use it for. As for a lender of last resort, the reason we don't have one, is we haven't required one, as quite sensibly a country doesn't need TWO lenders of last resort - does it now? How it will be set up - is a matter for discussion and negotiation between Westminster and Holyrood.
Westminster already said no, and changing tact now would be political suicide. Team yes is on its own.pcvdriver said:
We have a currency - it's called the Pound. Ok there is some debate over how long we'll continue to use it for. As for a lender of last resort, the reason we don't have one, is we haven't required one, as quite sensibly a country doesn't need TWO lenders of last resort - does it now? How it will be set up - is a matter for discussion and negotiation between Westminster and Holyrood.
We have a currency, we have a lender of last resort. You don't. Quite simple really.pcvdriver said:
We have a currency - it's called the Pound. ............ How it will be set up - is a matter for discussion and negotiation between Westminster and Holyrood.
An independent Scotland will have zero say over rUK's currency. Anyone thinking otherwise is wrong.An example is that some countries extensively use the $US- they don't have any control over American fiscal policy, do they?
HenryJM said:
pcvdriver said:
We have a currency - it's called the Pound. Ok there is some debate over how long we'll continue to use it for. As for a lender of last resort, the reason we don't have one, is we haven't required one, as quite sensibly a country doesn't need TWO lenders of last resort - does it now? How it will be set up - is a matter for discussion and negotiation between Westminster and Holyrood.
We have a currency, we have a lender of last resort. You don't. Quite simple really.pcvdriver said:
AstonZagato said:
Does it not worry you in the slightest that the majority of economists (and virtually every economist who is not being paid by the SNP) is predicting that Scotland will have a more difficult time succeeding economically with independence than without?
How will the Scottish government avoid austerity if this turns out to be the case?
Q. How many of you have ever set up your own business? How will the Scottish government avoid austerity if this turns out to be the case?
Q. It's tough in the beginning isn't it?
Q. But it's worth it in the long run isn't it?
A. Yes
A. Yes
A. Yes
If you're answering Yes to the last question - then I'd suggest that deep down in your heart you know it's going to be good for Scotland in the long run. Stop thinking short-term profits for yourself and start thinking long-term prosperity for your children and their children.
It is not good for their families.
So what is your point?
I am certain as I can be that that this would NOT be good for Scotland short-, medium- or long-term from an economic point of view. Pretty much every respected economist agrees with this. People will most likely be poorer. It worries me that people who want a "fairer" society really don't care about this.
mcdjl said:
pcvdriver said:
I'm well aware of the numbers of our representatives. I ask you what is better - to be able to change 9% (at the very most) of what you disagree with, or to have the potential to change 100% of what you disagree with. I know which option I'd choose.
If you can change 9%of our representatives I suggest that you have approximately 60 times the number of votes I do. In which case you're already better if than you think, or committing massive electoral fraud. Scotland as a nation is only able to change 9% of the Westminster MPs. I'd rather Scotland was able to change 100% of it's representatives, come election time. I also think that the people of rUK would prefer being able to choose 100% of it's representatives, instead of the 81% that it currently does.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff