Scottish "Independence" manifesto

[C0ckney]

Could it support itself? Yes, but with a big drop in living standards as they'd no longer get the generous transfer payments from England each year. Scots should be happy to sit around and keep getting the English to pay for their lifestyle.

right, this is one of those myths. here are some figures.

The key results for 2010-11 are as follows:

In 2010-11, total public sector expenditure for the benefit of Scotland by the UK Government, Scottish Government and all other tiers of the public sector, plus a per capita share of debt interest payments, was £63.8 billion. This is equivalent to 9.3 per cent of total UK public sector expenditure.

In 2010-11, total Scottish non-North Sea public sector revenue was estimated at £45.2 billion, (8.3 per cent of total UK non-North Sea revenue). Including a per capita share of North Sea revenue, total Scottish public sector revenue was estimated at £45.9 billion (8.3 per cent of UK total public sector revenue). When an illustrative geographical share of North Sea revenue is included, total Scottish public sector revenue was estimated at £53.1 billion (9.6 per cent of UK total public sector revenue).

[kentonio]

would the welfare spending be sky high? scotland already has higher health and education spending than the rest of the UK and manages ok. how much would the new commitments cost? although i've not done the figures, the new commitments don't seem too onerous, certainly nothing that couldn't be covered by a moderate increase in taxes.

A nice link from Better Together showing some of the lies and deceptions around the independence financial and tax positions.

http://b.3cdn.net/better/ba7717447e9..._x6m62bdb6.pdf

i think the EU thing is interesting. it's clear that scotland would have to enter a process to enter the EU and that euro entry would be a condition of that. however the euro thing is a commitment to, at some undefined point, enter the euro. i don't see how the EU could actually force any country to enter the euro if it didn't want to. with the entry itself, it's possible that spain and perhaps other countries could raise objections, but scotland is a rich, developed country whose laws already comply with EU standards and norms. therefore, any delay is likely to be short, and there's no doubt that some transitional arrangements, to keep free movement of goods, people, and capital, could be worked out in the meantime.

They'll certainly get entry, despite whatever Spain and France harrumph about. The SNP however paint Scottish entry as almost a favour to the EU and completely refuse to deal with the simple fact that Scotland would have to negotiate a completely new entry, which would certainly include a future commitment to the Euro (as all new members have to) and would equally not include many of the vetos and provisions that the UK has previously agreed. That's just simple fact, and for them to deny it is wildly dishonest.

As for transitional agreements with the UK, the point is that any such agreements (as with the currency) depend on the rest of the UK going along with it. On the currency issue at least we have very little reason to want to.

no nukes and NATO membership, i don't see why not. there are many NATO that do have nukes, but even if scotland were to leave NATO, what would be the practical impact? none that i can see besides a few job losses at military bases.

Alex Salmond originally claimed Scotland would 'inherit' NATO membership. Then NATO said this was not true. The SNP also insist on a nuclear weapon free Scotland. NATO membership includes a commitment to NATO's nuclear umbrella.

[C0ckney]

The pension is the big hitter. It's a commitment to inflation-busting pension rises, with vague suggestions about not raising the state pension age as quickly as England/Wales.

Add that to an ageing population, with a hell of a lot of baby-boomers now hitting pensionable age, and life expectancies rising, and you have a rising outstripping both inflation and wages.

The child care incentive is a gamble in increasing childbirth in order to pay those bills in a generation's time.

pensions are going to be a challenge for all developed countries. however, i think the worries are overblown. all that needs to happen is for productivity to rise faster than the worker to pensioner ratio. that has always happened so far, as far as i'm aware. the pensions lock will at least guarantee pensioner living standards.

the childcare thing is interesting, it may increase childbirth, although it's short term effect would be to unlock more economic potential, with mothers returning to work sooner.

[C0ckney]

A nice link from Better Together showing some of the lies and deceptions around the independence financial and tax positions.

http://b.3cdn.net/better/ba7717447e9..._x6m62bdb6.pdf

this appears to be about the oil fund. i don't think anyone disputes that scotland, like almost every other country in europe, runs a fiscal deficit. however this hardly precludes raising extra money through other means.

They'll certainly get entry, despite whatever Spain and France harrumph about. The SNP however paint Scottish entry as almost a favour to the EU and completely refuse to deal with the simple fact that Scotland would have to negotiate a completely new entry, which would certainly include a future commitment to the Euro (as all new members have to) and would equally not include many of the vetos and provisions that the UK has previously agreed. That's just simple fact, and for them to deny it is wildly dishonest.

well, it's not surprising that the SNP are putting the best gloss on the case for independence. if i were a scottish voter, the EU entry would be important to me (or rather keeping the free trade etc.), and it seems unlikely that there will be any serious problems in this regard.

As for transitional agreements with the UK, the point is that any such agreements (as with the currency) depend on the rest of the UK going along with it. On the currency issue at least we have very little reason to want to.

why would the rest of the UK have to 'go along with it'? does the US 'go along' with ecuador and zimbabwe using the dollar? in any case i don't see why it would be in the rest of the UK's interests to cause problems.

Alex Salmond originally claimed Scotland would 'inherit' NATO membership. Then NATO said this was not true. The SNP also insist on a nuclear weapon free Scotland. NATO membership includes a commitment to NATO's nuclear umbrella.

NATO membership seems trivial frankly, and i'd imagine that's the view of most scottish voters.

[Hauldren Collider]

If scotland leaves what happens to northern ireland?

[Hauldren Collider]

Also, what is it with independence movements and candyland economics? Do they really think universal day care is a good idea?

[C0ckney]

If scotland leaves what happens to northern ireland?

nothing. most of the people of northern ireland wish to remain part of the UK.

also, most scottish people do as well...

[Hauldren Collider]

pensions are going to be a challenge for all developed countries. however, i think the worries are overblown. all that needs to happen is for productivity to rise faster than the worker to pensioner ratio. that has always happened so far, as far as i'm aware. the pensions lock will at least guarantee pensioner living standards.

Sorry man. Their pension system would be ****ed. Your "all that needs to happen" is wishful thinking.

the childcare thing is interesting, it may increase childbirth, although it's short term effect would be to unlock more economic potential, with mothers returning to work sooner.

Omg what

No. Think about this. The mothers are already part of the informal economy, raising the children. This doesn't show up in GDP because it is a household good, but it is real economic activity. People are going to have to replace the mothers--the nannies--so net change will be minimal. Come on, let's put on our thinking caps please.

[regexcellent]

No you see when you pay people to dig holes and fill them up again and throw bricks through windows it actually improves the economy. Totally true. And the government can make money appear out of thin air by handing out pensions and benefits.

[C0ckney]

Sorry man. Their pension system would be ****ed. Your "all that needs to happen" is wishful thinking.

errr...no.

Omg what

No. Think about this. The mothers are already part of the informal economy, raising the children. This doesn't show up in GDP because it is a household good, but it is real economic activity. People are going to have to replace the mothers--the nannies--so net change will be minimal. Come on, let's put on our thinking caps please.

not necessarily. child care is a low value activity which almost anyone can do. providing it should release women into the workforce more quickly, many of whom will be able to undertake more economically valuable activities.

[regexcellent]

Any woman whose value to the economy is great enough that releasing her labor into the economy via child care is a net positive can already afford it.

Like this is a plainly obvious fact. If what you're producing is more valuable than taking care of your child you can afford to pay someone to take care of your child.

That's not even getting into the ridiculous insanity that is involved in thinking raising children is somehow the government's business...

[Lorizael]

Daycare should be universal. It should just be run by robots, of course.

[Hauldren Collider]

not necessarily. child care is a low value activity which almost anyone can do. providing it should release women into the workforce more quickly, many of whom will be able to undertake more economically valuable activities.

I expected this to be your retort, but refrained from addressing this because its silliness is so obvious that I hoped you wouldn't go there. I guess that's MY wishful thinking.

But here's the reason this is nonsense: If it's a low value activity anyone can do (and I agree that it is), then if you would earn more by not taking care of your kids, then you will hire a nanny in the first place. God damn.

Now, some mothers choose to do it anyway even though they could earn more money. That's because child care for mothers has both a labor and a consumption component to it--it is enjoyable to spend time with your child, so they are essentially spending money to do so by taking time off work. It would be false to say the economy would be improved if these mothers went to work anyway--again, this consumption is very real economic activity, it is just informal and not covered by government metrics like GDP, and thus cannot be taxed.

[regexcellent]

We should ban parents from raising their own children, just like we should ban private schools and homeschooling. After all they might raise their kids the wrong way or teach them the wrong things. Only government-licensed nannies and teachers should take care of kids, anyone else maybe unqualified.

[Hauldren Collider]

Daycare should be universal. It should just be run by robots, of course.