What is Westminsters Plan B

a reply to: ScepticScot

I'm a bit confused as to how they can quantify a "Scottish share" of defence anyway, besides, that isn't really relevant. They spend £3 Billion now (regardless of "share") and intend to spend £3 Billion in the future, ergo, no budgetary difference. It was you who brought up how the Scottish Government includes defence in it's accounts, so we should ignore it for iScotland but actually we can't, as they plan on spending the same.

And yes, the Yes campaign do paint a picture of a Scotland that would be "prosperous", "one of the richest in the world", "held back by Westminster" etc etc, so they do indeed paint a false picture. It isn't a "strawman" in the slightest, this is word for word what Salmond et al have been saying for months. My question is still how do expect to operate with an 8% budget deficit? This is still not being answered by any of you, instead you dance around the subject like it won't be a problem - it will.

As for the credit rating - leading on from the deficit question - it has already been pointed out by the ratings agencies that an iScotland would have a poor rating, simply from being unknown. This will lead to higher borrowing costs.

You seem to think I am some idiot who doesn't understand how these things work, but it seems there are plenty here who live in cloud cookoo land with regards to finances.

Now, if Scotland doesn't get a CU (it probably won't) and it walks from the debt (like Salmond et al have said they would) the ratings agencies have said Scotland's rating would be junk. Scotland benefits now from the UK's excellent rating - Scotland will not enjoy the same, regardless of a CU happening or not.

So, coming back to the 8% deficit- how are you going to finance the deficit if you find it hard/costly/impossible to obtain funding?

It's all very well trying to dance around the issue, but at some point you have to face the music.

EDIT: And yes, Scotland will have to "run a catalogue" to build up a credit rating - they have no track record with regards to debt repayment. Yes, you would be able to sell bonds, but owing to a lower rating, you'll have to issue them at a higher rate, costing more to borrow than it already does. And running an 8% deficit certainly won't help.

The fact you seem to think Scotland is going to get a AAA rating on Day 1 and full access to the bond market at preferential rates is just deluded.

The only argument i see for the yes vote is to the tune of "more oil, more money".

Do the people voting yes actually think they will see a penny of that oil money? Gaining independance will change nothing for you on a personal level. You will just be swapping the greedy #s in Westminister for a bunch of other greedy #s. The only thing that will change is that there will be more of you on the dole... if the new Scotland keeps the dole.

a reply to: stumason

a reply to: stumason

a reply to: stumason

a reply to: stumason
Can you post a link to where credit agencies say Scotland will have a junk rating as everything I have seen suggested one of the A ratings. Or is this just another opinion you have?
Every country in europe runs a deficit it is normal. Unless you can explain why Scotland singularly unique and some kind of economic basket case then you are just posting unfounded opinions (to be generous).
The 14th richest or whatever was based on Gdp per capita. Not a made up figure.
If you want to argue Gdp per capita is not a great economic comparison then I am right there with you. What is relavent is inequality and here the UK is truly terrible worst in western Europe from memory.
If you read what I said about defence you will understand there is a difference between share of expenditure and what is actually spent on Scotland's defence. If you come up with a compelling reason for Scotland to need nuclear missiles and aircraft carriers then I am all ears.
I doubt very much Scotland will walk away from all debt, how much debt depends on negotiation of split of assets.

a reply to: stumason
Oh and just to add the UK has had double digit deficits in last few years.

a reply to: liverlad
Yep because it is impossible to ever make anything better. Well done great level of thinking.

a reply to: ScepticScot

Just like it is impossible to make things better as a Union?

a reply to: liverlad
Of course it is possible but after 13 years of supposedly left of centre government you still have 20% child poverty in Glasgow. And we now have a government hell bent on demonising the poor I think it is less likely to get better in the union than out.

a reply to: ScepticScot

No he's just speculating based on his contempt for us wee Scots because we are all deluded up here. It's a pity Standard & Poor seem to think that we would be an investment grade economy.

S&P Scottish Credit Worthiness Report

a reply to: mclarenmp4
Deluded and racist, don't forget we all hate the English and Westminster is a code for really nasty words about them all.

a reply to: ScepticScot

Well, Mr Salmond's own economic advisor, Crawford Beveridge, said any move to walk away from their share of UK debt would be perceived as a "default" by ratings agencies was good enough for me - feel free to check it out yourself. It's a bit confusing you didn't notice this comment though - it was well reported.

Link

If you want the say so from an Agency itself, Moodys said an iScotland would have "investment grade" ratings, although face higher borrowing costs than the rUK, if all went well, but if it walked away from the debt as they have threatened, then it would be junk. Again, feel free to look this up.

As with everything in this topic, I try to get my info from sources in the "Yes" camp - be it Scottish budget info, to this ratings issue, as I know any other source will simply be shouted down as "scaremongering" - the buzz word of Alec Salmond, it seems. None of it is "opinion", but rather based on the facts at hand. It does seem, however, that many in the "Yes" camp are relying on "opinions" and not really thinking about it logically.

As for the deficit, you seem to missing the point. Yes, every country tends to run a deficit at one point or another, but very few run 8%.

The UK at the moment is just south of 4%, Greece is 4%, France is just over 4% and all are highlighted as having their own problems. An 8% deficit puts you leagues out in front (or behind) and will certainly be a barrier to EU membership if you manage to convince the EU Commission and Spain to even let you in. It will certainly send jitters around the bond markets, pushing borrowing costs higher still and they will push for tax hikes or spending cuts to compensate.

And no, the UK has not run a "double digit" deficit for years - certainly not since at least 1980 which is as far back as I can find details for.

a reply to: [post=18406204]stumason[/post
Try google
The UK ran double digit deficits in 2009 & 2010.
Again I ask what makes Scotland unique in being unable to manage its own economy?

a reply to: stumason
You know and i know Scotland wont walk away from it's shared debt...It's a Game of threats. Something to remind rUK that for every threat they have we can counter it.

And a Good bit of political manouvering on Alex Salmonds part as far as i'm comcerned, he's not been nowhere near strong enough when it comes to countering rUK BS on the pound.

a reply to: Soloprotocol
well i imagine that even if the vote is yes and i believe it will be the people in westminster will have stipulations for the transfer to an independent svottish state in other words they won't give up the black gold they will still get most of it and call it the price of your freedom,

a reply to: proteus33
The oil is 90% in Scottish waters. Post independence it is Scottish. Geographical assets go with the country other assets are up for negotiation along with debt share.

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: proteus33
The oil is 90% in Scottish waters. Post independence it is Scottish. Geographical assets go with the country other assets are up for negotiation along with debt share.

If you think it's that cut and dried you are living in cloud cuckoo land.

If Scotland does vote for independence, then they had better be prepared to spends years in court over North Sea Oil.

www.scotsman.com...

originally posted by: mclarenmp4
a reply to: ScepticScot

No he's just speculating based on his contempt for us wee Scots because we are all deluded up here. It's a pity Standard & Poor seem to think that we would be an investment grade economy.

S&P Scottish Credit Worthiness Report

Or, to use the summary in the linked document, "In short, the challenge for Scotland to go it alone would be significant, but not unsurpassable."

They also make the "ballpark" rating (BBB- or better) contingent on a number of things, including a monetary union with someone (UK, EU, etc). They accept that Scotland could float its own currency, but that it would raise other problems.

So, in other words, they're saying what everyone else is saying. There's nothing to say it can't work, but there are a whole heap of risks attached to the process - a number of things that are currently unknown or unsure would need to resolve in Scotland's favour to weather the process relatively unscathed.

If Scotland vote yes, they will still be able to vote in the next general election, as this will be held before they are officially independent. As Westminster will not apply to them after April 2016, how do you think they will vote?