Will Scotland Leave the UK?

Originally Posted by jfman

A legitimate question for the voters of Wales, yes. However if the voters of Wales voted for ideological reasons - 'taking back control' over economic ones then that is absolutely their perogative to do so.

Fundamentally, the UK makes economic decisions that (by it's own calculations) leave very few of the nations and regions as economic contributors. Wales, and other parts lagging behind on GDP per capita, will never make up the difference in the current constitutional settlement because there's no incentive for London to do so.

It's also our prerogative to ask rather than handwave it away. If Welsh Nationists want to 'take back control' at a significant economic cost then they should be honest about that state what will be cut or how they'll make up that huge spending disparity.

Both the Scottish and Welsh economy would adjust and make different economic decisions to reflect their newly independent nations but that will take time and it's not certain they'll reach the same levels of wealth. Some small nations manage to do it better than others.

Wales is a country of 3 million people. How would it adjust its economy to Independence? Is Wales going to turn Cardiff into a Singapore? Maybe the European Silicon Valley? And if so how is it going to do that whilst competiting against London & Dublin?

[jfman]

You are assuming that "wealth" is the only worthwhile measure of success. High GDP (and GDP per capita) counts for little for your citizens have a high cost of living and don't personally see the benefit of it.

Nobody wants necessarily to be Singapore or Silicon Valley. By framing the debate in these terms it narrows the scope of debate, essentially rigging it in favour of the union by emphasising economic uncertainty.

The role (and purpose) of the state are equally as important. What (and where) money is spent can be a significant difference between employing local people, in local jobs, paying taxes and profits being siphoned off into tax havens and private consultancies owned by friends of the leadership.

Wealth is a pretty key measure of success as it can directly impact people's lives and their cost of living. A low GDP means fewer, less well-paying, jobs. It limits the money the Government has at their disposal to improve the cost of living with what they subsidise, the Welsh NHS for example will be an expensive budget item for the newly independent Wales. As will their pension bill.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by jfman

. By framing the debate in these terms it narrows the scope of debate, essentially rigging it in favour of the union by emphasising economic uncertainty.

Probably a good place to start though.

The role (and purpose) of the state are equally as important. What (and where) money is spent can be a significant difference between employing local people, in local jobs, paying taxes and profits being siphoned off into tax havens and private consultancies owned by friends of the leadership.

You think that wont happen in an independent Wales or Scotland for that matter. Greed is not just an English trait it is a human trait and in any society there will be those more equal than others.

I remember at the last Indy Ref, that knob from Deacon Blue on Question Time pleading the case for a more "fairer" Scotland, like independence would deliver some kind of socialist utopia, bollocks, pull the other one it plays Flower of Scotland.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Damien

Wealth is a pretty key measure of success as it can directly impact people's lives and their cost of living. A low GDP means fewer, less well-paying, jobs. It limits the money the Government has at their disposal to improve the cost of living with what they subsidise, the Welsh NHS for example will be an expensive budget item for the newly independent Wales. As will their pension bill.

It's not the only measure of success though. Well paying jobs in areas with high GDP equates to a higher cost of living. Steps like more affordable housing could change the lived experience of citizens despite lower GDP.

The NHS and pensions are expensive budget items for the UK. Unless England are funding this through sheer generosity these will be somewhat proportionate to the Welsh population in terms of resourcing and costs.

The idea that small countries cannot be successful is completely flawed. However they need the economic powers to stimulate investment. "Lower paid" jobs at outset can make these attractive opportunities for international companies looking for well educated, English language workforces at a fraction of the cost you could get in the South East of England.

With more service sector/office work moving online with remote working it's inevitably going to change the dynamics and gives the potential to attract investment and corporate tax receipts. Wales will never be able to do this while the game is rigged in favour of the UK.

---------- Post added at 09:20 ---------- Previous post was at 09:19 ----------

Originally Posted by Pierre

Probably a good place to start though.

You think that wont happen in an independent Wales or Scotland for that matter. Greed is not just an English trait it is a human trait and in any society there will be those more equal than others.

I remember at the last Indy Ref, that knob from Deacon Blue on Question Time pleading the case for a more "fairer" Scotland, like independence would deliver some kind of socialist utopia, bollocks, pull the other one it plays Flower of Scotland.

It's certainly possible, but it's equally certain the current situation won't improve it.

Originally Posted by jfman

You are assuming that "wealth" is the only worthwhile measure of success. High GDP (and GDP per capita) counts for little for your citizens have a high cost of living and don't personally see the benefit of it.

Nobody wants necessarily to be Singapore or Silicon Valley. By framing the debate in these terms it narrows the scope of debate, essentially rigging it in favour of the union by emphasising economic uncertainty.

The role (and purpose) of the state are equally as important. What (and where) money is spent can be a significant difference between employing local people, in local jobs, paying taxes and profits being siphoned off into tax havens and private consultancies owned by friends of the leadership.

Decades of left wing carping about benefits being too low and hospital waiting times being too long have left many people assuming they’re not seeing the benefits of living in a wealthy nation, when the fact is there’s no way either Scotland or Wales could maintain the level of public spending they presently have within the UK.

You complain that focusing on GDP is ‘rigging’ the debate when the truth you can’t bring yourself to admit is that what it’s actually doing is ‘winning’ the debate. State benefits cost money. Infrastructure like the new Forth road bridge costs the same to build in a country of 5 million as in a country of 60 million.

Nationalistic pride is cheap. It’s an indulgence when you need comfort at a time of crisis or you hate the party that’s been running the country for years. Actually putting it into practice has a tangible cost. I’m not sure any nationalist in either Wales or Scotland has yet come to grips with the reality of erecting international frontiers on this island. Are Scottish businesses really going to be happy to fill in those 73 page export documents just to get their goods south of Gretna? Are Welsh businesses going to give up on the border towns close to England that are virtually impossible to get to without using roads that cross the border multiple times?

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by jfman

I've offered to pay for Old Boy to campaign for the cause of British nationalism in the Scottish Parliament elections.

He has thus far declined my kind offer, sadly.

Would that be backed by an English loan.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Chris

Decades of left wing carping about benefits being too low and hospital waiting times being too long have left many people assuming they’re not seeing the benefits of living in a wealthy nation, when the fact is there’s no way either Scotland or Wales could maintain the level of public spending they presently have within the UK.

You complain that focusing on GDP is ‘rigging’ the debate when the truth you can’t bring yourself to admit is that what it’s actually doing is ‘winning’ the debate. State benefits cost money. Infrastructure like the new Forth road bridge costs the same to build in a country of 5 million as in a country of 60 million.

Nationalistic pride is cheap. It’s an indulgence when you need comfort at a time of crisis or you hate the party that’s been running the country for years. Actually putting it into practice has a tangible cost. I’m not sure any nationalist in either Wales or Scotland has yet come to grips with the reality of erecting international frontiers on this island. Are Scottish businesses really going to be happy to fill in those 73 page export documents just to get their goods south of Gretna? Are Welsh businesses going to give up on the border towns close to England that are virtually impossible to get to without using roads that cross the border multiple times?

You're right benefits do cost money - £22 billion a year on housing benefit that does little to resolve the problem instead props up a buy to let housing market.

Scotland and Wales would have to make different choices on public expenditure yes, but where we differ is your assumption they couldn't make better choices more representative of their needs and populations.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

What business is it of yours, the issue and union may well be saved if English people keep out of it, actually cancel that, lecture them till your boots are filled

Sometimes, you just have to save people from themselves.

---------- Post added at 10:28 ---------- Previous post was at 10:26 ----------

Originally Posted by jfman

Yawn.

How does England finance anything? Fiscal deficit, over a trillion of debt, recession...

However you want to look at this, we are financing Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. That’s my point.

Originally Posted by jfman

You're right benefits do cost money - £22 billion a year on housing benefit that does little to resolve the problem instead props up a buy to let housing market.

Scotland and Wales would have to make different choices on public expenditure yes, but where we differ is your assumption they couldn't make better choices more representative of their needs and populations.

'We would make different choices' is just the standard cop-out answer. There are oodles of examples of countries of similar size and resource as Scotland or Wales where a more specific starting point could be made by way of comparison (though various other things like social attitudes and population health must be accounted for). I'd be interested to hear your views on which different choices, at work in other places, would work for Scotland.

I propose not indulging the Welsh angle any further in this thread incidentally - it's beyond silly.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

You're right benefits do cost money - £22 billion a year on housing benefit that does little to resolve the problem instead props up a buy to let housing market.

Scotland and Wales would have to make different choices on public expenditure yes, but where we differ is your assumption they couldn't make better choices more representative of their needs and populations.

Very different choices, jfman. All those Lefties in both Scotland and Wales won’t like it one bit if they were to realise that their public services had to be grossly curtailed to fund independence.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

However you want to look at this, we are financing Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. That’s my point.

No independent analysis supports that as independent countries they couldn't be better off. Plus England would in your theory save money. Win win.

---------- Post added at 10:40 ---------- Previous post was at 10:40 ----------

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Very different choices, jfman. All those Lefties in both Scotland and Wales won’t like it one bit if they were to realise that their public services had to be grossly curtailed to fund independence.

Speculative at best

---------- Post added at 10:44 ---------- Previous post was at 10:40 ----------

Originally Posted by Chris

'We would make different choices' is just the standard cop-out answer. There are oodles of examples of countries of similar size and resource as Scotland or Wales where a more specific starting point could be made by way of comparison (though various other things like social attitudes and population health must be accounted for). I'd be interested to hear your views on which different choices, at work in other places, would work for Scotland.

I propose not indulging the Welsh angle any further in this thread incidentally - it's beyond silly.

We would make different choices is hardly a cop out answer. It's the very essence of how, and where, countries promote investment. Do we spend hundreds of millions on Japanese trains or do we spend more to build them here, recognising the consequent economic value of those jobs in their communities bringing subsequent value to their communities?

Do we build high speed train networks or high speed broadband networks?

These are at the very core of economic development.

Originally Posted by jfman

No independent analysis supports that as independent countries they couldn't be better off. Plus England would in your theory save money. Win win.

---------- Post added at 10:40 ---------- Previous post was at 10:40 ----------



Speculative at best

---------- Post added at 10:44 ---------- Previous post was at 10:40 ----------



We would make different choices is hardly a cop out answer. It's the very essence of how, and where, countries promote investment. Do we spend hundreds of millions on Japanese trains or do we spend more to build them here, recognising the consequent economic value of those jobs in their communities bringing subsequent value to their communities?

Do we build high speed train networks or high speed broadband networks?

These are at the very core of economic development.

There are of course locations within the UK where the heavy engineering and technology skills exist as a basis for a domestic rolling stock industry. They are however all in England, where hard economics dictates they would all remain because most of what any such facility produces would always be used in England. Much the same could be said of any other example of manufacturing you could name. Within the UK of course it doesn't really matter whether the rail engineering hub is in Darlington or Dundee. It would provide tax receipts to the UK government and machinery to the whole rail network, to the benefit of all. However when you start talking about these things while wilfully neglecting the fact that there would be a major international competitor to the south, you're really not making a very convincing point.

[jfman]

A major international competitor that sees such great returns on investment and every pound of public expenditure that it can, allegedly, make billions in transfers to the other nations and regions shouldn't be too difficult to emulate.

The purpose of these transfers, other than propping up a neurotic and fragile English nationalism, is to prevent competition and keep those nations in check.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

No independent analysis supports that as independent countries they couldn't be better off. Plus England would in your theory save money. Win win.[COLOR="Silver"]

I would be interested to read any independent analysis that claims either Scotland or Wales would be as well off after independence. Northern Ireland is a different proposition as the most likely independence result would see them join with the Republic of Ireland.

Do you have any links, jfman?

---------- Post added at 11:35 ---------- Previous post was at 11:32 ----------

Originally Posted by jfman

Speculative at best.

You know that’s not true. Look what happens when any government tries to cut benefits or any other public services. The Left shout the loudest, of course.

---------- Post added at 11:39 ---------- Previous post was at 11:35 ----------

Originally Posted by jfman

We would make different choices is hardly a cop out answer. It's the very essence of how, and where, countries promote investment. Do we spend hundreds of millions on Japanese trains or do we spend more to build them here, recognising the consequent economic value of those jobs in their communities bringing subsequent value to their communities?

Do we build high speed train networks or high speed broadband networks?

These are at the very core of economic development.

Do we provide a furlough scheme or just let those impacted by the pandemic claim universal credit? That kind of thing, eh?

Scotland on its own would never have been able to fund a furlough scheme as the UK has done, and you know it.

You picked the wrong example, and it wasn’t even a good one. The UK is building a high speed rail line AND high speed broadband.