Alex Salmond and Independence

[Plugsy]

The oil revenues are obviously declining though and if some big financial services employers leave, like some have threatened, that will hurt. Much has already been said about Scotland's potential higher borrowing costs too.
I'm just intrigued about will happen. I don't want Scotland to go to shit- I have a lot of friends from there and have been there loads of times- it is a beautiful country.
I just think Salmond underestimated just how expensive and complicated the whole process will be.

In terms of expense I'd look at the cost of setting up government/civil service departments to run things like taxation. At the moment the white paper says they intend to share resources with HMRC but once again, no agreement exists for them to do so. It's another example of Salmond thinking that stating a preference means automatic acceptance, as if to form a union or bond with any country all you need to do is insist you want it.

The cost of setting up things like a border controls, an immigration service, a customs and excise/tax collecting agency, a financial services regulator and all the literally dozens and dozens of other agencies/bodies will be astronomical. We see how much a mere name rebranding of various departments runs into millions of pounds, let alone when they need to get their computer system updated, then it's often hundreds of millions. Just imagine the cost of setting up everything from scratch.

 

[Ryan's Beard]

He's got a very strange view of independence if he thinks it means "We'll contribute nothing to your economy but you'll still do everything for us". Because that's exactly how it works at the moment.

 

[Jippy]

In terms of expense I'd look at the cost of setting up government/civil service departments to run things like taxation. At the moment the white paper says they intend to share resources with HMRC but once again, no agreement exists for them to do so. It's another example of Salmond thinking that stating a preference means automatic acceptance, as if to form a union or bond with any country all you need to do is insist you want it.

The cost of setting up things like a border controls, an immigration service, a customs and excise/tax collecting agency, a financial services regulator and all the literally dozens and dozens of other agencies/bodies will be astronomical. We see how much a mere name rebranding of various departments runs into millions of pounds, let alone when they need to get their computer system updated, then it's often hundreds of millions. Just imagine the cost of setting up everything from scratch.

I'm not sure setting up the infrastructure for government and regulation will be that bad- surely they would just take the existing institutions and rebrand them, honing them over time as they tweak various laws.
The actual constitutional wrangling about splitting costs- eg share of RBS debt and the likes of what happens to the nuclear submarine base will be the bigger headache, at least time and complexity-wise.

 

[Plugsy]

I'm not sure setting up the infrastructure for government and regulation will be that bad- surely they would just take the existing institutions and rebrand them, honing them over time as they tweak various laws.
The actual constitutional wrangling about splitting costs- eg share of RBS debt and the likes of what happens to the nuclear submarine base will be the bigger headache, at least time and complexity-wise.

Look how much it cost Lloyds to re-brand TSB branches. Presumably they still used the same systems, kept the same staff, already had the real estate etc, but it was still obscenely expensive and that's just renaming something, essentially. Scotland is going to need its own financial services body, tax collection service, immigration control, border agency and it's very likely they'll have to negotiate their own terms to software providers. It isn't up to the UK government to sublease software to a different nation.

All the government software/IT systems are made by someone who owns the copyright to them, if Scotland wants it then it'll have to come to its own arrangements, regardless of whether the UK government is feeling generous or not, which I don't think it will.

The nuclear submarine base isn't an issue. If Scotland wants to be part of NATO, which it apparently does, you don't do this by kicking the subs of a NATO member over the border. It'll be a condition of their membership that they'll leave the subs exactly where they are. The US, much less Britain, will not be happy to see a game of nuclear football and if you want to join a group, not pissing off members already in it would be a good idea.

 

[Jippy]

I reckon Lloyds would have had to transfer all of the TSB accounts onto its own IT platform and do a huge amount of work behind the scenes besides merely rebranding.

Fair point about the IT sourcing. Surely the software companies can just offer a mirror version of whatever the UK currently uses though, albeit yep, it won't be cheap.

As for the subs, I dunno about whether Nato has made it a condition of Scotland joining or not. Seems unlikely the discussions would have gotten that far given how sketchy the whole independence plan seems. The Scottish government might face popular pressure to get rid of them...or not if they are massive employers I guess.

Would be interesting to know how much becoming independent cost the likes of Serbia and Croatia. It's a bit different, but the integration of East Germany cost West Germany a bomb- no idea how much but it was a massive drag on its GDP for over a decade.

 

[Count Orduck]

I don't think the current Torie executives would hold a referendum on leaving the EU. If their members really pushed for it, I can just see it ending with a massive split and half the party going to UKIP.

Cameron has already said that if they win the next election, he'll hold a referendum on the topic.

 

[711]

In terms of expense I'd look at the cost of setting up government/civil service departments to run things like taxation. At the moment the white paper says they intend to share resources with HMRC but once again, no agreement exists for them to do so. It's another example of Salmond thinking that stating a preference means automatic acceptance, as if to form a union or bond with any country all you need to do is insist you want it.

The cost of setting up things like a border controls, an immigration service, a customs and excise/tax collecting agency, a financial services regulator and all the literally dozens and dozens of other agencies/bodies will be astronomical. We see how much a mere name rebranding of various departments runs into millions of pounds, let alone when they need to get their computer system updated, then it's often hundreds of millions. Just imagine the cost of setting up everything from scratch.

I'm sure you are right, but you are also illustrating how the current 'Scots have more spent on the than they contribute in taxes' would change. The staff of most of the bodies you mention work in London, and they are well-paid. Their taxes contribute to the 'London and the SouthEast pays for the rest of the UK' effect. When they are based in Scotland their taxes will paid to the Scottish government, money that will stay in Scotland.

 

[Ryan's Beard]

I hardly think that will be enough to offset, for example, free higher education for the Scots.

 

[711]

The nuclear submarine base isn't an issue. If Scotland wants to be part of NATO, which it apparently does, you don't do this by kicking the subs of a NATO member over the border. It'll be a condition of their membership that they'll leave the subs exactly where they are. The US, much less Britain, will not be happy to see a game of nuclear football and if you want to join a group, not pissing off members already in it would be a good idea.

Firstly I think the likes of Spain are members of Nato even though they refuse to have nuclear weapons on their territory.

Secondly if the Scots were set conditions I would imagine they would forget about Nato altogether. The Irish don't seem to feel the need to join.

 

[Plugsy]

Firstly I think the likes of Spain are members of Nato even though they refuse to have nuclear weapons on their territory.

Secondly if the Scots were set conditions I would imagine they would forget about Nato altogether. The Irish don't seem to feel the need to join.

Spain is different in that it never had any. If it did and then Catalonia voted for independence and the Catalans refused to house the nuclear arsenal previously held in their territory, it'd get their application off to a poor start.

I've no clue why Scotland wants to join Nato myself, but they apparently do and conditions will come with that, similar to the EU if they apply for membership

 

[711]

There would be conditions, but please don't take offence if I prefer to wait and see what they actually are rather than take as read a few made up by yourself Plugs!

I am of course leaping ahead to a yes vote anyway. Although as a gambling man I'd consider it a strong possibility now. There's a whiff of the tide turning in the air.

 

[Silva]

Cameron has already said that if they win the next election, he'll hold a referendum on the topic.

Sorry for not believing everything he says.

 

[711]

Cameron has already said that if they win the next election, he'll hold a referendum on the topic.

He has, but after re-negotiating the UK's terms. As there is no possibility of meaningful re-negotiations (every other member would want the same) then make of his promise what you will. Personally I think it's just a desperate attempt to delay things coming to a head, and the party being badly split on the issue, cynic that I am.

 

[Member 39557]

He has, but after re-negotiating the UK's terms. As there is no possibility of meaningful re-negotiations (every other member would want the same) then make of his promise what you will. Personally I think it's just a desperate attempt to delay things coming to a head, and the party being badly split on the issue, cynic that I am.

I agree. Either that or his recent meeting with Merkel was actually fruitful enough for him to assume that he can get some sort of deal that will appease the public/party long enough to delay it for another few years.

 

[Ibi Dreams]

One thing I haven't seen discussed anywhere but which I'm very curious about is how Scotland being independent would affect the rest of the UK politically. Scotland has a large number of safe Labour seats, the whole country predominantly votes Labour and this is a fairly influential factor in general elections. If Scotland becomes independent and Labour loses those seats, will we not see the Tories maintaining a majority in every election?

 

[Don't Kill Bill]

There would be conditions, but please don't take offence if I prefer to wait and see what they actually are rather than take as read a few made up by yourself Plugs!

I am of course leaping ahead to a yes vote anyway. Although as a gambling man I'd consider it a strong possibility now. There's a whiff of the tide turning in the air.

My problem with the whole thing is that this seems to be almost always the case on every issue. Let’s vote for independence and then see what we can get. My problem with that isn't the presumption about the vote but more where that leaves the negotiation post vote. I can see Salmond and people in Scotland saying this is what we voted for so you have to give us it based on the SNP's wish list. That isn't fair on the rUK and doesn't bode well for an amicable separation.

 

[Don't Kill Bill]

One thing I haven't seen discussed anywhere but which I'm very curious about is how Scotland being independent would affect the rest of the UK politically. Scotland has a large number of safe Labour seats, the whole country predominantly votes Labour and this is a fairly influential factor in general elections. If Scotland becomes independent and Labour loses those seats, will we not see the Tories maintaining a majority in every election?

For a while I think that is a safe bet but the progressive vote faced with such a position is bound to come together in the long run and without external political pressure generally parties drift to extremes and split. So a anti EU/ UKIP Tory party and a pro EU/ business less reactionary conservative party, a Lib/Lab progressive party and a hard left socialist group would be my guess as to the eventual political structure.

We would be out of the EU though in my opinion because if Cameron doesn't provide the referendum he has promised he will be removed and replaced by someone who will.

 

[Adebesi]

Scottish independence would be a political hand grenade that would blow the existing status quo apart completely, surely. On the face of it yes, losing a load of safe Labour seats would be a big plus for the Tories but on the other hand Cameron would be seen as the Tory who lost Scotland and the damage that could do to their reputation as a party is immense. I agree with DKB that there could be big changes in the air in terms of political groupings, things that are happening anyway, but this could be a massive catalyst. I imagine a lot of disgruntled Tories would go over to UKIP overnight, Farage would certainly be able to make a lot of hay out of that situation. The Libs are already standing on the brink of oblivion as well though and most Lib voters would probably end up going to Labour unless there was a new party for them to go to.

I think its one of those situations that is so explosive it is difficult to say how things would look when everything settled back down.

 

[Ibi Dreams]

Good points and I understand what you're saying, but it's hard to believe things could change that radically. It's felt so stagnant and samey for so long that imagining any different parties having influence is really difficult. Just can't really envision anything other than a Labour/Conservative battle, although I could see more willingness to form coalitions

 

[Jippy]

There would be conditions, but please don't take offence if I prefer to wait and see what they actually are rather than take as read a few made up by yourself Plugs!

I am of course leaping ahead to a yes vote anyway. Although as a gambling man I'd consider it a strong possibility now. There's a whiff of the tide turning in the air.

Really? I've not seen the latest polls but I thought allowing 16 year olds to vote and barring those Scots that live in England was seen as a desperate attempt to gain more votes because the yes campaign was struggling? The hardline comments from Osborne etc are probably the pro-independence side's best recruitment tool.

 

[Cheesy]

Really? I've not seen the latest polls but I thought allowing 16 year olds to vote and barring those Scots that live in England was seen as a desperate attempt to gain more votes because the yes campaign was struggling? The hardline comments from Osborne etc are probably the pro-independence side's best recruitment tool.

There's been a definite increase in support recently, with average poll results growing since November and odds shortening. The minister coming out the other week saying a currency union would happen, contrary to what Osbourne said, is further indicating change. Personally, I don't think it will happen myself although it's becoming more and more likely, and it'll probably be a close result.

 

[Ibi Dreams]

have a look at this then



what's he on about

 

[Cheesy]

have a look at this then



what's he on about

 

[Adebesi]

Good points and I understand what you're saying, but it's hard to believe things could change that radically. It's felt so stagnant and samey for so long that imagining any different parties having influence is really difficult. Just can't really envision anything other than a Labour/Conservative battle, although I could see more willingness to form coalitions

You might be right, but just because it is hard to envisage things being different (and I agree it is, and part of me thinks Scotland will vote no for exactly that reason) that doesnt mean it wont happen. Sometimes things can stay the same for a very long time and then change very dramatically in a short space of time. Scotland leaving the UK would be a game changer, something would have to happen.

The Tories are already under massive pressure with the rise of UKIP. Back in the early days of the coalition I started thinking about political regrouping and I envisaged the LibDems splitting with the majority being absorbed into the Labour party (it feels like a lot of Liberals see themselves as almost a Labour party annex, considering the reaction of voters and grass roots activists to working with the Tories, despite the fact they advocate PR and therefore should have a more mature attitude to pragmatic coalitions), Orange Group joining the left of the Tory party, with the right of the Tories joining UKIP. Ideologically those groupings would seem to make more sense.

In some ways this neednt feel that dramatic a change. The main difference would be the third party wouldnt be the LibDems anymore, it would be UKIP or whatever the party it become was called (surely at a certain level of maturity it needs to reinvent itself with a name that doesnt suggest it is a single issue party?) What is difficult to predict is if the Tory party did split, how big the component parts would be. At a certain point a split makes less sense than a massive lurch to the right for the entire party, which could make them less electable to centre ground voters who see themselves as natural Tories.

Like I said, there are so many possibilities it is impossible to predict really.

 

[Ibi Dreams]

That's a good post, I agree with what you're saying. I think it's an interesting time for us politically whether Scotland gain independence or not actually. Like you've said, there are a number of parties under pressure to shift or change or revamp what they are.

I personally hope Scotland stays with the UK, but that's mainly because I think we need them more than they need us. I can absolutely understand people voting for independence and if I was Scottish I think I would probably vote for it

 

[Adebesi]

When you say we need them more than they need us, can you elaborate on what you mean by that? Do you mean we need them to stop us becoming a more right wing country?

I think we need each other, and if I was Scottish (which is very hard to imagine, not least because I would make a woeful football manager) I can only imagine I would vote no. But having said that I can see why it would be frustrating to live in a country that was overwhelmingly left leaning, yet to be subject to right wing governments chosen by English voters. So maybe it is more a failure of my imagination and I would also feel as you do.

 

[Cheesy]

When you say we need them more than they need us, can you elaborate on what you mean by that? Do you mean we need them to stop us becoming a more right wing country?

I think we need each other, and if I was Scottish (which is very hard to imagine, not least because I would make a woeful football manager) I can only imagine I would vote no. But having said that I can see why it would be frustrating to live in a country that was overwhelmingly left leaning, yet to be subject to right wing governments chosen by English voters. So maybe it is more a failure of my imagination and I would also feel as you do.

That last part is key. I can see why you'd want us to stay, but the issue of having a government we didn't vote for is ultimately quite central to the whole thing. It is difficult to imagine the whole thing though if you're not from the country itself, which is fairly understandable.

 

[rednev]

Here's an interesting possibility to think about.

If Scotland votes yes, what happens if the Shetland Islands, Outer Hebrides and the Orkney Islands decide that they don't want to be part of an independent Scotland? They could demand their own independence referendums or request to remain a part of the United Kingdom. If you look at this graphic showing the oil fields that would fall under Scotland's control should they get independence, you can see a large proportion of them are within the coastal waters of the Shetland and Orkney Islands. This Independent article quotes a claim that 67% of Scotland's oil and gas reserves lie within the islands' waters.

As oil and gas revenues form an integral part of the economic plans of the SNP for an independent Scotland, any moves by these islands to refuse to be part of an independent Scotland cold seriously feck them over. It'd be a massive shot to the balls for Salmond, who has talked so much about the right of self determination. How is his talk of London stealing Scotland's oil wealth any different to the potential talk of Edinburgh stealing the oil wealth of these island groups?

 

[Cheesy]

Here's an interesting possibility to think about.

If Scotland votes yes, what happens if the Shetland Islands, Outer Hebrides and the Orkney Islands decide that they don't want to be part of an independent Scotland? They could demand their own independence referendums or request to remain a part of the United Kingdom. If you look at this graphic showing the oil fields that would fall under Scotland's control should they get independence, you can see a large proportion of them are within the coastal waters of the Shetland and Orkney Islands. This Independent article quotes a claim that 67% of Scotland's oil and gas reserves lie within the islands' waters.

As oil and gas revenues form an integral part of the economic plans of the SNP for an independent Scotland, any moves by these islands to refuse to be part of an independent Scotland cold seriously feck them over. It'd be a massive shot to the balls for Salmond, who has talked so much about the right of self determination. How is his talk of London stealing Scotland's oil wealth any different to the potential talk of Edinburgh stealing the oil wealth of these island groups?

It could, although there's not really been too much talk of Shetlands independence. If they were in Scotland, and in a position to benefit from oil revenues, there wouldn't be too much of a reason for them to leave provided it benefited them.

Not to mention that the islands could come under being an enclave, meaning they'd only be entitled to resources within a 12-mile radius, although I'm not completely sure on that one.

Basically, if the Shetlands wanted to go independent, we'd be stealing their oil. If not, then there's not really a case for it.

 

[rednev]

Another interesting problem that would arise from independence is the question of the Royal Navy base at Faslane, which is home to Britain's nuclear deterrent. The SNP is adamant that nuclear weapons will not be housed in Scotland after independence, but the logistical and financial problems that would arise out of moving the base to England or Wales (NI is out of the question for obvious reasons) are enormous. The cost would be in the tens of billions, and that's if it's even possible due to reasons of geography. I could imagine the UK declaring Faslane British sovereign territory.

 

[Ibi Dreams]

When you say we need them more than they need us, can you elaborate on what you mean by that? Do you mean we need them to stop us becoming a more right wing country?

I think we need each other, and if I was Scottish (which is very hard to imagine, not least because I would make a woeful football manager) I can only imagine I would vote no. But having said that I can see why it would be frustrating to live in a country that was overwhelmingly left leaning, yet to be subject to right wing governments chosen by English voters. So maybe it is more a failure of my imagination and I would also feel as you do.

Yeah what you said, I want Scotland to remain in the UK purely because I don't want the UK to be a predominantly Conservative nation. If I was Scottish I would relish the opportunity to become independent because the political systems of the UK have some serious issues imo, issues that don't look to be going away soon. They have the opportunity to basically start with a blank slate, implement the right systems and create a better democracy, it seems a no brainer to me

 

[Jippy]

There's been a definite increase in support recently, with average poll results growing since November and odds shortening. The minister coming out the other week saying a currency union would happen, contrary to what Osbourne said, is further indicating change. Personally, I don't think it will happen myself although it's becoming more and more likely, and it'll probably be a close result.

PaddyPower suggesting a clear no vote.

INDEPENDENCE REFERENDUM RESULT
Sunday 5th October 2014, 22:00
Independence Referendum Result
Against Independence (Fail)
2/9
For Independence (Pass)
11/4

 

[Rednotdead]

Why do people keep misspelling Osborne's name as "Osbourne"?

The poll the Yes campaign keeps quoting (Panelbase) is completely discredited. It's one where panel members can "self select" themselves and have multiple accounts.

 

[Jippy]

Because it is spelt slightly unusually and people's attention to detail isn't all that at a wild guess.

 

[x42bn6]

Wikipedia has a full article on opinion polling for the referendum: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_Scottish_independence_referendum,_2014

 

[711]

Why do people keep misspelling Osborne's name as "Osbourne"?

Well at least it's accidental. There was some dick on this forum last year kept deliberately re-spelling names for the 'amusing' effect.

 

[Cheesy]

PaddyPower suggesting a clear no vote.

INDEPENDENCE REFERENDUM RESULT
Sunday 5th October 2014, 22:00
Independence Referendum Result
Against Independence (Fail)
2/9
For Independence (Pass)
11/4

It's still expect that there will be a no vote, but those odds have shortened in the past couple of months. 11/4 for Yes is much shorter than it's been at all so far.

 

[Jippy]

Must admit I've not been keeping tabs on it but the yes vote certainly isn't outlandishly priced. Still a few months to go and no doubt they will carry on moving round.

 

[Ramshock]

I was very surprised when I found out George Galloway was on the no side of the issue. He is all for Irish reunification and a free Palestine but he cant see the same for his own country.

 

[Cheesy]

I was very surprised when I found out George Galloway was on the no side of the issue. He is all for Irish reunification and a free Palestine but he cant see the same for his own country.

His whole stance is a bit bizarre. He's essentially anti-SNP which drives his no view, but all of his politics represent things that Yes would generally stand for: a more left leaning country. He's very anti-Westminster too, and advocates the freedom of countries such as Palestine, but is against that of his own.

He's trying to paint himself as this down to earth man of the people, but the fact is that he's an English MP, and it's within his best interests to be Better Together if he hopes to keep his seat in 2015. He almost lost it when Jim Sillars pointed that out in their debate the other week, but it's essentially true. Taking the Yes side would significantly damage his chances of re-election.