Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it,
follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given
their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!
Posts
Will Scotland keep the monarchy? If not, what happens to their property?
Euro, GBP, some new Scottish Pound? What's the economic future of an independent Scotland?
What happens when Scotland losing the special protections that the UK has from the Eurozone?
How will it pay for the huge amount of money it'll owe the EU's bailout fund (assuming it joins the EU)?
Is North Sea Oil a good thing to found an economy on given the upcoming peak oil and the move away from oil based energy?
There are a lot of questions that Salmond and the SNP aren't really answering well. The answer to all of those seem to be "well, we'll see when it happens". According to their own government the referendum will happen within the next five years, I think they should already know which way their leaning.
Fun fact: more than 50% of jobs in Scotland are in the public sector. Barring the rapidly diminishing north sea oil/gas field reserves (see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Sea_oil#Reserves_and_production the salient quote being: "but even using the most optimistic "maximum" estimate of ultimate recovery, 76% had been recovered at end 2010") Scotland has few national resources; a little coal, seafood, some agriculture. In theory, they have a fair amount of renewable energy resources (wind and tidal power specifically) but these are extremely capital-intensive to exploit.
It's difficult to see how full independence would be anything but an immediate economic disaster for Scotland. Thanks to the oil, and also because of having better infrastructure and stability, Scotland has been in a historically better position than Ireland, but it's plain to see that an independant Scotland would be in no better one in the future. There simply isn't the economic base to maintain current living standards. Especially since lending money to small countries with large debts running large deficits isn't the fashionable financial activity it once was.
Scotland would presumably inherit a proportionate share of the UK national debt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_national_debt), so it would start out with a debt/GPD ratio considerably worse than the UK as a whole, and a rather higher per-capita and per-GDP borrowing requirement as well. Given that the UK as a whole is just currently barely hanging on to financial credibility in the bond markets these days, it's not a stretch to suspect that Scotland would almost instantly join the likes of Greece and Portugal at the junk bond table.
In fact in the short term at least, the main economic beneficiary of Scottish independance would be England. The sorry history of Pakistan shows us what happens when you have a small country which defines itself culturally by not being its larger neighbor.
tl;dr: Scottish independance is economically impossible barring some sudden and huge massive change in economic circumstances, and will remain so for the forseeable future.
Also, if Iceland has the economic base to secure a western standard of living with 300k people, 0.3% farmable land and no natural resources beyond fish, then I refuse to believe that an energy rich country of 5 million with a strong heritage of science and finance, modern world class universities and steady tourism cannot sustain itself.
I agree Scotland would do okay, the question is if it would do better separate.
The other small northern European countries all have more going for them than Scotland would:
The Netherlands Denmark and Belgium have incredible farmland and great positions as in the transport hubs of Europe
Norway and Sweden have much much greater Resource/Population ratios than Scotland and really cheap energy thanks to hydropower
Iceland has only 300k people, a fifteenth of Scotlands, but an EEZ fishing zone as large as Scotland would be (plus better fishing) and so much renewable energy it can run huge aluminium plants.
Ireland isn't exactly doing hot right now.
None of them have had to try to shift from heavy industry to post-industrial the UK including Scotland is still in the throws of, find an outlet for the excess low-skilled labour that produces, and don't really offer a guide to further economic development.
In terms of who does better, all the small countries you listed (barring post-crisis Ireland) do better than England in terms of quality of life. Only Scotland and Wales do worse.
Scotland is currently an energy exporter (not including oil), and has a lot of unexploited capacity. It also has modern industry (good chance the PC you typed that post on was made in Scotland).
Scotland's major problem is that a lot of its (renewable) energy capacity is not currently utilised, but with proper investment it could function on a similar level to the Nordics.
Yeah I wasn't saying they're worse than England, but the idea that Scotland on its own would be a happy Nordic Economy fairyland ignores the very real differences between Scotland and those states, or that those states took half a century to get where they are now. Maybe if you pushed the East End of Glasgow into the Sea perhaps. With appropriate investment Scotland could meet 80% of its power needs on renewable energy, Norway produces so much that it can sell 20% of the excess to Sweden. I agree that investment should be made, but see no reason why that can't be done as a UK wide strategy.
Hard to turn that kind of argument into empirical data, however. One of the big things that struck me when I moved to Aberdeen was the lack of urban regeneration and renewed sense of civic pride compared to NE/NW England, which underwent similar trauma in the 80s.
Iceland has geothermic, hydroelectric and aluminium resources. Maintaining "western living standards" for 300,000 people in a small, highly centralised, culturally and ethnically homogenous, highly educated, socially stable country is rather different from doing the same for 5,000,000+ in Scotland's condition.
It's also worth remembering that Iceland was poor as dirt until the banking bubble boosted living standards, and it's questionable to say the least whether those living standards will be maintained.
And how would being independant improve quality of life for Scotland (or Wales, come to that)?
You haven't disputed that Scotland would be considerably worse off, financially speaking, so there must be very substantial indirect QoL benefits to independence that would transcend not only the additional penalties of becoming independant, but also to bridge the gap that already exists.
That seems like a lot to ask, and it doesn't seem like you're bringing a lot of answers other than "Nordic countries do OK!" when those Nordic countries are in very different economic positions.
I'm not saying that Scotland is an economic null entity or anything - there is an economy there, but it's plain wishful thinking to imagine that there is enough to independantly maintain anything like the current standard of living. And that standard of living is - as you yourself admit - not great now. The most likely outcome of Scottish independence would be that within a few years, everyone who could would get the hell out to escape skyrocketing taxation and plummeting living standards.
Would an indepenant Scotland qualify for the Eurozone? Maybe 5 years ago the Germans would have looked the other way while the books were fudged just enough, but now? Yeah, I'm thinking not so much. Likewise, I hardly see them continuing to be allowed to use Sterling, since that would effectively mean the UK economy writing them a blank check. If they're obliged to use their own currency, can anyone make a case for the "Scottish Pound" doing anything other than sink like a stone and inflate like a balloon?
Did the Irish Pound sink like a stone and inflate wildly when it was introduced? How about all the currencies introduced after the fall of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, or the USSR?
EDIT: Scotland is not Greece. Out of trade interests alone Scotland would be cut a damn fine deal by England upon independence (see the emergency loans to Ireland), so I don't think it would have too much trouble getting into the EU. North European countries with high tax rates aren't really the problem in the current crisis.
Into the Eurozone? Much less certain.
Small country currencies are doing fine as it is.
Why should he come up with anything else? This is the SNP party line from top to bottom. It's all utter fiction. Salmond just makes this shit up as he goes along and for most SNP supporters blind racism toward the English is enough for them to keep eating this nonsense up.
As for Aberdeen not getting any urban regeneration I guess that multimillion pound retail park built on top of the cities main transport hub doesn't count huh? This is what pisses me off about the nationalists. They're so selective in their use of facts, they ignore what they don't like and exaggerate and lie about the rest.
He lives on as cheezburger grease in our hearts.
The free money is buying an inferior economy and standard of life. Independent countries in similar situations are doing better than England. The 'you get free money so shut it' would be more persuasive if Scotland didn't lag the rest of the UK, while being politically aligned with countries that outperform it.
Unionist arguments annoy me because they belittle and denigrate Scotland, and reject any idea that they might be competently capable of managing themselves.
Union Square is not really on a level with projects like Baltic, the Millenium Bridge, or the raft of modern homes and apartments built in Newcastle, Manchester and Liverpool.
EDIT: All that being said, as Scotland is going to be ending up with devo-max at least, the question really comes down to the value of an independant foreign policy, and England's and Scotland's don't really line up.
If people are pouring scorn on Salmonds vision of Scotland that's because it has more holes in it than Swiss cheese, not because we think less of Scotland.
He lives on as cheezburger grease in our hearts.
Edit- I asked a similar question to a pro-independence activits in Puerto Rico, and he wasn't really able to give a concrete answer. It seems like many independenct activists just assume that independence would automatically provide benefits.
Rigorous Scholarship
He lives on as cheezburger grease in our hearts.
Agreed on both counts. In my ideal world, we'd get STV before the Scots left, but I'm more likely to open a unicorn burger franchise before we get any meaningful electoral reform.
To be honest, it's not so much an issue of Scotland lagging England as everywhere lagging the south-east of England. We have a very lopsided economy built to channel money, labour (a Tory MP recently suggested that poor northerners simply move to the south to get jobs) and brainpower ever southwards. An independent Scotland (or one with total economic control) can obviously resist this.
Rigorous Scholarship
Economic policy is crafted in such a way to be exclusively favourable to the southeast and the businesses there (with a light mixing of post-industrial decline). Scotland's slightly spend per person doesn't really counter this. An independent Scotland can act similarly to Ireland (e.g. lowering coporate tax rates) to attract more business than it currently can.
I think this is actually the nub of the issue. The established pattern of devolved powers has been for Scotland to immediately implement the reverse of Westminster policy upon obtaining them. England is dividing up and privatising the NHS, Scotland is centralising it; England increases tuition fees for universities, Scotland removes them; etc.
Regardless of the economic outcomes, it's easy to see why Nationalists chafe at being under a government that wants to build a totally different kind of country. Cameron apparently wants to turn England into the USA. Salmond evidently wants to turn Scotland into Sweden.
Take the introduction of student tuition fees in England in 2004. We ended up with a situation where Scottish MPs voted to allow the fee's in England, whilst Scotland's students are subsidized by English tax-payers.
It seems slightly wrong that they can vote to screw English students without effecting their own...
I don't know what the answer is. Personally I 'd go for full devolution...
We already have such divergent economies within the UK (and look how well that's working out for the EU) - why not split it further? Regional assemblies for Scotland, Wales, Northern-Ireland, SW England, SE England, NW England, NE England and the midlands. It might allows policies geared to areas other than London.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3984387.stm
The whole affair was shambolically managed.
You're using Ireland as an example of how you want to run our Economy? Seriously? Ireland got through the last decade by having the EU pay for everything, and when that gravy train derailed and the handouts stopped they found themselves at the bottom of a financial hole so deep and dark their grandchildren will be lucky if they can crawl far enough from the bottom to see daylight again.
It's been said before in this thread, the answer to our financial problems lies in further integration with our neighbors, not dividing into ever smaller groups with opposing agendas and less resources.
He lives on as cheezburger grease in our hearts.
Out of curiosity, do you think Ireland's solution to its woeful economic mismanagement should be to surrender most economic and political control to Westminster?
Ireland was a poster child for fiscal prudence pre-crisis; Ireland's two big mistakes were to join the euro and nationalise their banks' debts, not taking EU money.
Like, life wasn't great beforehand, but they had it under control... then BAM
So you think that the scottish politicians who would run an independent Scotland will do a better job that the Scottish politicians who run the UK? Let's look at the names of the most recent 3 prime ministers shall we; Blair, Brown, Cameron. (OK I'll give you Cameron, but he's only been in the job a year or two) A Scotsman was chancellor of the exchequor for over a decade, and you wish us to believe that he conducted a deliberate policy of impoverishing his own motherland? The phrase citation needed has rarely seemed so apt.
And what would stop this "brain drain" continuing to happen after independence? After losing Scotland, there would surely be an amplification of this effect (what would be England's motivation not to crank it up as high as it'll go?), unless you're going to suggest there would be a massive acceptance of lower living standards amongst your mobile labour pool for patriotic reasons. That's certainly not what happened in Ireland, and the drain didn't even slow down until the boom fueled by massive EU investment took off. I don't think it is very likely at all that Scotland would benefit from the same level of largesse that Ireland got in the 90s. Throwing money at small countries with marginal economies would require money that simply isn't available these days.
This isn't about "deingrating" or "belittling" Scotland. This is about asking what the average Scottish person will be asked to pay and how they will benefit and what the likely short-medium term consequences of independence are. You say "Independent countries in similar situations are doing better than England." OK, put some facts on the table: which countries, and how are their situations similar? Name two.
Your whole argument rests on what happened to small countries in economic situations extremely different to Scotland's now. Iceland has no huge post-industrial areas to clean up and a highly educated, socially stable population. Ireland had an economic boom fuelled by EU free money (apparently EU free money is good while "english" free money is bad) and low corporate taxation, plus the effective subsidy of the Euro, - well there won't be much more free EU money, and if you try and lure business out of Ireland with low taxes, what's to stop them responding in kind? Norway don't have a massive public debt, in fact they have a huge sovereign investment fund, and they've already put in the heavy capital investment required to reap the rewards of their hydroelectric resources (plus they have useful mineral resources also), and they have a well respected technology/engineering sector too.
I'm trying to understand what the motivation of Scottish independence is other than simple nationalism. It seems to be something that will be extremely expensive for the Scot on the street whilst offering no apparent benefit other than nationalist pride.
Taking free money is never a bad idea. What is a bad idea is becoming dependent on it an assuming it'll never stop. A lot of Mr Salmonds ideas for the future of Scotland assume it can get the same sort of deal Ireland has got over the last decade. While he has a grand history of ignoring things that are inconvenient to his crackpot plans I don't think even he can wish away a global recession and a Eurozone in crisis. There is no more free money to give, what money there is is being given to Greece and Portugal with massive strings attached.
Do I think Scotland should put its fate entirely in the hands of Westminster? No, that's why we have a devolved parliament. Do I think we should piss in the face of common sense and go it alone because hating English people has become fashionable in the last 40 years? I'd have to give a resounding nope to that as well.
He lives on as cheezburger grease in our hearts.
What level of devolution do you think is best then? Because at devo-max, you're basically left with foreign policy to argue over. How much economic control should Scots have over Scotland?
New Labour focused policy on winning over the SE of England. Conspiracy!
Ireland had a hell of a lot less natural wealth, and an ingrained history and culture of emigration.
Sweden and Finland. Low population densities, low overall population, rich in (non-oil) natural resources, progressive social democratic politics.
It would take a lot of initial money to see Scotland reach full economic potential. Still means its potential is great and it could be doing better. An independent Scotland could borrow the start-up money - and infrastructure spending gives great returns. Scotland already has a significant industrial sector to build on (28% of Europe's PCs are made there) so could compete well with Ireland.
The benefit is creating a society representative of Scotland while pursuing the best deal for Scotland. the main reason the SNP has done so well at the last two elections is that it is the only Scottish party to offer a postive vision of Scotland's future. The unionist parties are utterly moribund by comparison.
Not really. Scottish Labour are a miserable shadow of a party, with no spirit or compelling vision to sell to the country. Its problems run much, much deeper than the aftershocks of New Labour.
EDIT: The lib-lab coalition shielded much of Scotland from the worst excesses of New Labour.
EDIT: Ironically one of its major problems is the brain drain of political talent south of the border; the only competent politicians in Scotland are the ones who believe in Scotland; funny how that kind of faith can have such effects on core competence.
Hmm, I hadn't thought of that.
I think the SNP would be better off if Salmond wasn't the leader. That guy just doesn't seem to give as shit about anything other than becoming PM of Scotland. Maybe it's because they're only in the early days of the independence drive, but Salmond's plans all seem to be "everything that is wrong with everywhere is Westminster and everything good is ME".
It doesn't inspire much faith in me, as an outside observer, that Scotland will be better off going it alone.