Could an independent Scotland have more sensible house prices?

[micawber]

10 hours ago, Ignorantbliss said:

I have never understood why the Conservatives especially are so keen to keep Scotland.

No more than Labour and the Lib Dems, surely?

Perhaps it's about respecting the wishes of the 70% of UK Scots who have not indicated a strong desire for indepedence. I can't imagine a UK govt abandoning its subjects to a marauding minority.

[Confusion of VIs]

52 minutes ago, micawber said:

It's all hypothetical. We'll just have to guess at what the markets will make of a country walking away from it's obvious obligations. I suspect that the EU would also take a dim view of a country that finds it so easy to stiff a neighbour. They'll wonder whether they should let in a country which considers itself so exceptional. Lastly, the UK might just exact revenge through monetary strategy and border controls on Scottish exports. So not a wise move.

Do you seriously think anyone in the Finance world cares a jot about obvious obligations, legal liability is all that matters.  Likewise the EU, being a rules based organisation, would have no issue with Scotland following the rules. In any case what chance do you think there is that any Scottish politician could survive gifting England £200bn.    

[micawber]

15 minutes ago, Confusion of VIs said:

Do you seriously think anyone in the Finance world cares a jot about obvious obligations, legal liability is all that matters.  Likewise the EU, being a rules based organisation, would have no issue with Scotland following the rules. In any case what chance do you think there is that any Scottish politician could survive gifting England £200bn.    

I do. That's why UK and US governments are financed at such low rates. People know where they stand with them.

I have no idea what the debt settlement would be but I'm pretty sure that even the mad Nutters wouldn't really try pulling the stunt being proposed.

Sorry, Natters

[Confusion of VIs]

44 minutes ago, micawber said:

I do. That's why UK and US governments are financed at such low rates. People know where they stand with them.

I have no idea what the debt settlement would be but I'm pretty sure that even the mad Nutters wouldn't really try pulling the stunt being proposed.

Sorry, Natters

Finance is a hard nosed business and gifting £200bn away would not compute to its practitioners. How can you know where you stand with a country that would do something like that.

I suspect the final deal would include Scotland taking on a share of the debt but not on a per capita basis and not before extracting other concessions in return for what they do take on. 

     

[micawber]

1 minute ago, Confusion of VIs said:

Finance is a hard nosed business and gifting £200bn away would not compute to its practitioners. How can you know where you stand with a country that would do something like that.

I suspect the final deal would include Scotland taking on a share of the debt but not on a per capita basis and not before extracting other concessions in return for what they do take on. 

     

I agree. Much as I dislike the SNP, I don't think that they are as stupid as many of their followers.

It's a poker game where the UK will hold most of the Aces.

[gp_]

On 11/05/2021 at 14:44, Riedquat said:

Whilst it's true that the UK as a whole is badly overcrowded

Its not. Lots of nice places to live with significantly higher population densities (ignoring very small countries and city states that are not really comparable). I have even lived in one and no other there complained about it being over-crowded.

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependencies_by_population_density

[kzb]

8 hours ago, micawber said:

It's all hypothetical. We'll just have to guess at what the markets will make of a country walking away from it's obvious obligations. I suspect that the EU would also take a dim view of a country that finds it so easy to stiff a neighbour. They'll wonder whether they should let in a country which considers itself so exceptional. Lastly, the UK might just exact revenge through monetary strategy and border controls on Scottish exports. So not a wise move.

The whole thing would be subject to negotiation.  To think they could walk away debt free is cloud cuckoo land.  There is much recent history of state secession, and in every case the debts and assets have been apportioned.  The debts are commonly shared on a per capita basis.  The Canadians have a plan for debt apportioning should Quebec go its own way and so should we.

The Trident subs will get stationed in Cornwall or something, maybe  opposite Ile Longue.  If it's OK for French subs there should be nothing to stop us doing it.  The scots will lose the jobs associated with the current base and will be good opportunities for our impoverished county of Cornwall.

[kzb]

16 minutes ago, gp_ said:

Its not. Lots of nice places to live with significantly higher population densities (ignoring very small countries and city states that are not really comparable). I have even lived in one and no other there complained about it being over-crowded.

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependencies_by_population_density

We are not set up to take it though.

It's a mystery how we are going to build offshore windmills fast enough to replace gas and to power all the electric vehicles for the existing population, never mind adding more.

[micawber]

Just now, kzb said:

The whole thing would be subject to negotiation.  To think they could walk away debt free is cloud cuckoo land.  There is much recent history of state secession, and in every case the debts and assets have been apportioned.  The debts are commonly shared on a per capita basis.  The Canadians have a plan for debt apportioning should Quebec go its own way and so should we.

The Trident subs will get stationed in Cornwall or something, maybe  opposite Ile Longue.  If it's OK for French subs there should be nothing to stop us doing it.  The scots will lose the jobs associated with the current base and will be good opportunities for our impoverished county of Cornwall.

Correct. This is what will happen - not what some of the over-optimistic Natters hope. And this is the crux of the matter. Will the SNP tell the truth about the likely realities to be faced or will they lie again.

I am absolutely in favour of self-determination done correctly. But we cannot be held hostage by the SNP acting like a petulant child every 10 years.

[zugzwang]

10 minutes ago, kzb said:

 

The Trident subs will get stationed in Cornwall or something, maybe  opposite Ile Longue.  If it's OK for French subs there should be nothing to stop us doing it.  The scots will lose the jobs associated with the current base and will be good opportunities for our impoverished county of Cornwall.

 

You'd save a LOT more money by putting them in The Queen Mother Reservoir and using them as a tourist attraction.

 

[Riedquat]

30 minutes ago, gp_ said:

Its not. Lots of nice places to live with significantly higher population densities (ignoring very small countries and city states that are not really comparable). I have even lived in one and no other there complained about it being over-crowded.

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependencies_by_population_density

Right, so discounting small islands and so on the UK's pretty high up that list (and that's the UK, of which a not insignificant proportion is Scotland, which isn't overcrowded, England alone would be rather higher).

It's one thing to be happy enough in a place that's densely populated - we all have our own preferences - but to actually believe there's no issue in the UK is to be completely out of touch with reality. Would you notice any difference if it was half as much or twice as much as it is? "It's overcrowded but that doesn't bother me" I can understand. To not even be able to comprehend the effect of population density though - jesus, I pity whatever's happened to you to develop such stunted horizons.

[Pmax2020]

23 hours ago, Young Turk said:

37% voted for Brexit and I agree that wasn't a mandate for Brexit.

33% voted for pro-independence parties in 2021 and I don't think that is a mandate for independence or another vote on independence.

Multiplying the 52% pro-Indy vote last week by the 70% turnout is a flawed way of presenting matters. For starters you’re making an irrational assumption that the remaining 67% of the electorate that voted for traditionally unionist parties or indeed didn’t vote at all are all against independence.

Only a referendum would reveal what the real appetite is and that’s the democratic way of asking people. 
 

 

[Pmax2020]

19 hours ago, Ignorantbliss said:

I have never understood why the Conservatives especially are so keen to keep Scotland.

Water, timber, renewable energy, food & drink, oh and trillions of pounds in oil.

Yup - no idea why Westminster is desperate to save the union!

[kzb]

14 minutes ago, Pmax2020 said:

Water, timber, renewable energy, food & drink, oh and trillions of pounds in oil.

Yup - no idea why Westminster is desperate to save the union!

The oil will have to stay in the ground.  There will be little market for it after about 2030 anyhow.

If you want water we in NW England will sell it to you instead.

[kzb]

1 hour ago, micawber said:

Correct. This is what will happen - not what some of the over-optimistic Natters hope. And this is the crux of the matter. Will the SNP tell the truth about the likely realities to be faced or will they lie again.

I am absolutely in favour of self-determination done correctly. But we cannot be held hostage by the SNP acting like a petulant child every 10 years.

 

...adds up to (at least) a £26bn total reduction in Scottish GDP which is equivalent to 15% of Scotland’s 2019 GDP of £168.14bn. (You should really add to this the £0.86bn (0.5% of GDP) net membership fee that Scotland will pay if it joins the EU).

The UK economy has just experienced a 10% reduction in GDP due to the covid pandemic. This is the largest fall in 300 years. The UK economy will eventually bounce back from this.  Scottish independence means a permanent reduction in GDP of 15%, which is 50% greater than the cost of covid.

Ms Hyslop did not spell out how ‘fiscal arrangements’, FDI or a Scottish currency could compensate for a 15% reduction in Scottish GDP. The reality, of course, is that the Scottish economy will never recover from this.

Further, Scotland has very generous social benefits, such as free prescriptions, travel and university tuition fees. The Scottish Government has also just offered a 4% pay rise to 154,000 NHS Scotland staff, well above the 1% offered by Westminster to NHS staff in England. All this helps to explain the huge 8.9% budget deficit.

It is also going to be especially bad for mortgages denominated in sterling. Most Scottish residents (around 800, 000 of them) will have sterling mortgages at the point that Scotland switches to its new currency. The value of these mortgages would increase if the new currency falls in value; and the mortgage interest payments will no longer be fixed, but will rise and fall as the new currency’s value fluctuates. 

Scotland’s share of UK net liabilities is estimated to be around £300bn, or 200% of its current GDP.

This is the same national debt ratio as Greece. The SNP expects Scotland to be welcomed with ‘open arms’ by the EU.  They are in danger of getting the same welcome as Greece, as well as having a ‘technical government’ being imposed on them by Brussels

https://briefingsforbritain.co.uk/the-fantasy-economics-behind-the-case-for-scottish-independence/

[gp_]

On 13/05/2021 at 18:46, kzb said:

We are not set up to take it though.

It's a mystery how we are going to build offshore windmills fast enough to replace gas and to power all the electric vehicles for the existing population, never mind adding more.

Yes, because we have had decades of bad planning and have not built the housing we need. Our infrastructure is pretty good other than that though.

The issue of switching to electric vehicles bother me too, but add extra population is not going to change it much: 10% extra demand in a few decades is nothing like as big a problem as switching over what we have in the next 10 to 15 years.

[gp_]

On 13/05/2021 at 19:03, Riedquat said:

To not even be able to comprehend the effect of population density though - jesus, I pity whatever's happened to you to develop such stunted horizons.

I have lived and worked in very  different places - three different continents for a start, although one only for a few months.

I also like looking at number and facts.

[kzb]

6 minutes ago, gp_ said:

Yes, because we have had decades of bad planning and have not built the housing we need. Our infrastructure is pretty good other than that though.

Do you actually live in Britain?  What planet are you on?

7 minutes ago, gp_ said:

The issue of switching to electric vehicles bother me too, but add extra population is not going to change it much: 10% extra demand in a few decades is nothing like as big a problem as switching over what we have in the next 10 to 15 years.

It's 10% in a few years not a few decades.  300,000 a year.

We've had quite a bit of debate on here about electricity generation capacity.  To cut a long story short, we are already nowhere near where we need to be.  Even with a steady population, to meet our carbon zero target, we need to triple electricity generation and also replace the gas powered stations.  That's A LOT of windmills.

[regprentice]

On 13/05/2021 at 19:29, Pmax2020 said:

Multiplying the 52% pro-Indy vote last week by the 70% turnout is a flawed way of presenting matters. For starters you’re making an irrational assumption that the remaining 67% of the electorate that voted for traditionally unionist parties or indeed didn’t vote at all are all against independence.

Only a referendum would reveal what the real appetite is and that’s the democratic way of asking people. 

It's also irrational to assume all SNP voters want independence. They saw their highest ever return after the last referendum because people felt it was 'safe' to vote SNP now the issue of independence had been put to bed.

Theres a bit of a clash with the SNPs appeal, to some people they are nationalists who will free Scotland from the union, but to others they are 'proper' socialists who've achieved a successful long term socialist left leaning government in a way Corbyn could only dream of. You don't have to believe both of those positions are positive to want to vote SNP.

There is a also vociferous hate towards the English parties in Scotland and the SNP don't have an indigenous rival. In particular there are still people who despise the conservatives for the poll tax.

[Pmax2020]

4 hours ago, regprentice said:

It's also irrational to assume all SNP voters want independence. They saw their highest ever return after the last referendum because people felt it was 'safe' to vote SNP now the issue of independence had been put to bed.

This is the most bonkers post I’ve seen on this forum.

I’ve just said a referendum on the constitution will reveal the will of the country though it’s worth mentioning that pre-pandemic some polls were showing YES as high as 58%.

Furthermore the notion that the SNP got their highest turnout due to Indy being put to bed in 2016 is utterly delusional. Independence was at the heart of the SNP and Greens manifestos and it dominated every single televised debate. It was the main topic during 6 weeks of campaigning.

Without a doubt at least 90% of SNP voters are overtly pro-Indy. 

[regprentice]

12 hours ago, Pmax2020 said:

This is the most bonkers post I’ve seen on this forum.

I’ve just said a referendum on the constitution will reveal the will of the country though it’s worth mentioning that pre-pandemic some polls were showing YES as high as 58%.

Furthermore the notion that the SNP got their highest turnout due to Indy being put to bed in 2016 is utterly delusional. Independence was at the heart of the SNP and Greens manifestos and it dominated every single televised debate. It was the main topic during 6 weeks of campaigning.

Without a doubt at least 90% of SNP voters are overtly pro-Indy. 

According to this article in 2011 surveys showed that 40 percent of SNP voters were opposed to independence. Last year the SNP (Ross Colquhoun) said they believe that 40% of Scottish labour voters were pro independence. It's not nearly as cut and dried as the SNP Vs everyone else. 

The last 7 polls have put a yes vote in the referendum as low as 39% but every poll put the vote under 48%.

So the SNP can command a majority in the Scottish parliament last week (only one seat short of an overall majority) yet support for a referendum in the same week is only at 39-45% and the SNP themselves think 40% of those who support independence are labour voters. 

Edited May 17, 2021 by regprentice

[Riedquat]

21 hours ago, gp_ said:

I have lived and worked in very  different places - three different continents for a start, although one only for a few months.

I also like looking at number and facts.

Been everywhere and noticed nothing?

Numbers and facts are all well and good but beware of knowing the price of everything and the value of nothing. The idea that you can determine such things based on factual analysis alone is absurd - they'll tell you the point where the practical issues become unsurmountable but the idea that there can't be overcrowding until that point is reached speaks of a big detachment from reality. There's a sad tendency to dismiss subjective assessments, yet they're the ones that are of absolute importance to quality of life, once you've got past the level of only being concerned with the basic necessities of survival.

The amount of damage that's been done by people who don't understand this is immense. And unforgivable.