Comments on: Scotland isn’t too wee for independence, but it might be too poor

By: Calum

Calum — Fri, 19 Oct 2012 17:07:02 +0000

Also, if you look at the past GERS reports, Scotland was in absolute (not relative) surplus for 2 of the last 5 years, whilst the UK has had a deficit for all 5 years. Again, not much, but a glimmer of hope.

By: Calum

Calum — Fri, 19 Oct 2012 16:59:57 +0000

It should also be remembered that the UK gets more back in spending than it raises in revenue – it’s called the deficit. The government is forced to borrow to make up the shortfall. So yes, whilst Scotland does get more back from the UK in real terms than it contributes in revenues, so does every other region of the UK. That doesn’t make the situation any better, but it should be observed that Scotland isn’t exceptional in this regard.
The best way to reduce the deficit is to grow the economy, something which arguably could be better achieved by independence. Arguably, mind, I don’t have any evidence for that.
Also, I think you have confused debt and deficit in your article. Deficit is the difference between revenue and spending, whilst debt is the amount borrowed the cover that shortfall. So while George Osborne hopes to eliminate the deficit, he admits he will increase the debt.

By: Alex Buchan

Alex Buchan — Fri, 19 Oct 2012 12:43:29 +0000

As I see it the issue really is more one of legitimacy. Any vote for independence over 50% means that Westminster’s legitimacy is shot, but that doesn’t mean that there won’t be questions raised in Scotland and in Westminster especially if there are parts of Scotland where the yes vote is very low. If the lowest support for independence was in Shetland for instance expect calls Shetland to have a special status of some sort. But basically the UK couldn’t continue if more than 50% voted yes. If less than 50% vote yes the situation is a little more complicated.

There is a common assumption based on polling that the level of support for independence hovers around 30%. Anything below 30% will be a decisive loss and will kill the issue for a generation. Anything above, though still a loss, wouldn’t kill off the issue long term. Nevertheless a vote for independence of between 30% and 40% could be ignored by Westminster and will certainly be hailed as a great victory by unionists.

Anything above 40% would still be hailed as a victory by unionists but would keep the issue alive and raise difficult questions, as much in England, as in Scotland. The English are not very happy with the current set up, either, and any vote for independence in Scotland of more than 40% wouldn’t bring the union together but would instead increase pressure for change all round. Cameron has already been preparing for this with talk of a constitutional convention after a no vote. But there are problems in this because many see an English Grand Committee as a slippery slope towards a fully-fledged English Parliament, but English Votes for English Laws is also difficult politically, but will probably be the way the politicians would want to go. Whatever is decided I would expect the campaign in England for an English Parliament to pick up and if it’s over 40% more powers would be on the way for Holyrood.

By: Jeff

Jeff — Fri, 19 Oct 2012 11:33:13 +0000

I think Scotland would go deeper into the red because that’s what the GERS figures seem to be suggesting. I’m trying to take any subjectivity out of it, so ‘think’ is probably the wrong word.

Of course, the UK is also going deeper into the red so a key question, and I don’t really have a view at this stage, is whether it’s better to be a big country with a big debt going deeper into the red or a small one.

Pointing to other small countries is insufficient as they seem to have low debt & low GDPs or high debt & high GDPs, unlike Scotland would.

I think not having the cash cow that is London would be a concern and would expect that Scotland would be less likely to keep AAA status, compared to rUK. But I’ll read your link as it sounds interesting. Thanks.

By: Nik

Nik — Fri, 19 Oct 2012 11:08:08 +0000

Apologies, I missed the word ‘much’ in your ealier post.

So you think Scotland you just go deeper into the red (assuming it doesn’t tell Westminster that it can keep the debt).

You might like to read this, too: http://www.bondvigilantes.com/blog/2012/01/04/happy-hogmanay-would-an-independent-scotland-still-be-rated-aaa-and-might-the-rest-of-the-uk-get-downgraded-too/#comments

By: Jeff

Jeff — Fri, 19 Oct 2012 10:43:18 +0000

Yes, I know assets have been occasionally mentioned for Greece, hence my saying that aspect hasn’t been mentioned “much”, as opposed to ‘not at all’.

I still find it a faintly desperate riposte to a more considerable problem. I don’t think one of the first priorities of a proud independent country should be asset stripping.

By: Nik

Nik — Fri, 19 Oct 2012 10:33:16 +0000

Jeff, you said ‘If someone has a huge credit card bill to pay off, what difference does it make if they own their own house?’

Um, a massive difference? They then have a tool with which to ease the burden of the credit card debt. They aren’t paying any money to a mortgage as they don’t have one, do they?

You’re quite wrong about the reporting of the debt crisis not mentioning what assets each country has, too. It’s been mentioned that Greece should sell some of its assets to cover its debt, for instance.

By: Jeff

Jeff — Fri, 19 Oct 2012 10:21:03 +0000

And a great thought at that.

I think that’d make a great post (and we welcome guest posts remember), but a friend did say to me recently that he doesn’t want Scotland to be independent but he’s going to vote Yes because he doesn’t want a No landslide. I’ve been meaning to type something up on it but it kind of ties in with what you’re saying.

Will try to write something on it, but, as I say, guest posts always welcome…

By: Iain Menzies

Iain Menzies — Fri, 19 Oct 2012 10:11:02 +0000

This isnt a comment as such so feel free to delete it but for some reason i am having email difficulties just now….anyway.

On your last sentence. Certainly 50.1% is enough for either side to win….but ive seen in a number of places people saying that the unionist side has to get a clear victory (i would say 60-65% up) so as to properly settle the issue for a reasonable period of time. I would be interested in your thoughts (suggesting a blog post here) as to what level of result would be best for scotland in terms of a yes vote. By which i mean is 50.1% enough to allow scotland to leave the UK in a reasonably united manner socially and culturally.

Just a thought.

By: Jeff

Jeff — Fri, 19 Oct 2012 08:41:41 +0000

And of course we’d take a share of the UK assets, that’s not ‘unionist apologism’ or whatever you’re calling it, it’s just not really that relevant to the points I’m making.

If someone has a huge credit card bill to pay off, what difference does it make if they own their own house? The reporting of the sovereign debt crisis didn’t comment much on what assets each European country has, and with good reason. It’s just not part of the equation unless we’re going to asset strip ourselves to

I agree that there’s a bargaining round to be had with the UK Government upon independence, but gambling Scotland’s future on a few rounds of political poker in the hope Cameron will hand over tens of billions of cold, hard cash is, once again, a tough sell to the Scottish public.

Note that my premise isn’t so much what’s right and what’s wrong, but rather what’s the most likely path to a 50.1%+ Yes vote.