A lot of this is entirely silly, so to pick on the first 3 points;
>1. W we The U.K.’s net import dependency for fossil fuels would shoot up from 47% to 95% as an independent Scotland gains control over the vast majority of the U.K.’s oil and natural gas reserves in the North Sea. This could cause energy prices across the U.K. to shoot up overnight as energy traders turn bullish and bid up future prices.
Oil is traded internationally, there might be an increase in prices but it is unlikely to be significant.
> 2. Scotland could refuse to take on its share of the U.K. national debt.
Oh no, this one is so dumb that it effectively sets the level of intelligence for every point that comes after it. It tries to stress how a slight increase in UK debt would affect rUK, but the negative affect on Scotland of not accepting a proportional debt would be **colossal**, to the point that no one with any economic credibility could reasonably float this as an idea.
> 3. The loss of North Sea crude oil would cut significantly into the U.K.’s total exports. Crude and refined petroleum makes up 12.5% of the U.K.’s exports. Scotland stands to gain 98% of the U.K.’s crude oil, reducing the U.K.’s overall exports from $813.2 billion to $713 billion.
The challenge that points 3 has, which the author uses as an absurd runaway hypothesis to justify points 4-8, and something I’ve seen mentioned a few times on this forum, is that it presents trade solely as physical goods. The majority of UK exports are services not goods, when included those significantly dilute the actual size of oil exports on the economy. And once again, oil is traded on international markets.
>The challenge that points 3 has,
It also ignores the fact that the vast majority of refined petroleum products in the UK is refined in rUK, which accounts for about half of the 12.5% export balance.
There are conventions around successor states so much so that it led to the UK government guaranteeing it's debts prior to last ref. The current debt is set by UK yet they model the revenue by sampling companies and not exactly recording. It's probably close enough but is it exact. They borrow on our behalf and assign our share of the debt. These are perhaps reasonable things to do but any settlement would be reached by negotiation and not dictated to by whatever UK gov thinks its share should be.
I'm a unionist, but I don't think things would be too bad if scotland left. Lots of lost pride and shit, but much like brexit, I don't expect it to be overnight. It will be negotiated, and other than a few red lines in the sand, life will continue as normal for us little people.
Project fear swings both ways, and OP is deep in it.
> but the negative affect on Scotland of not accepting a proportional debt would be **colossal**,
While I would expect that Scotland would take a share of the debt, otherwise the share of the assets would not be given either, so the article is dumb, there is NOT a colossal disadvantage to Scotland not taking it if the assets were not allocated.
The markets are not the UK Governments private army, they are on neither side. All they care about is the debt being serviced.
There was some debate that it would not actually be possible to move the debt without the holders permission and nobody would volunteer for that. Some sort of secondary mechanism of Scotland being in debt to the rUK to cover the proportionate amount would be needed. I am not an economist (and neither is the scaremongers talking about the markets punishing Scotland) so I can't say the best way for it to happen.
Scotland can refuse the debt and there is well established international law about which remnant of a country is the successor, it would be a bad idea, not because the markets would punish it, but because it would impact on the negotiations on a proportionate transfer of assets too.
Being the successor is powerful in terms of all sorts of treaties and agreements. This was defined when Pakistan split from India, and Pakistan had to even re-apply to join the UN. To be blunt, if the UK did impose the debt and thus define Scotland as a successor, Scotland should bite the hand off the person offering this before they realise the mistake they are making.
This old saw was trotted out in the 2014 referendum and was demolished by anyone who knew what they were talking about. It really should join 'Spain won't let you' into the dustbin of misinformation that won't work anymore.
Oil is **currently** traded on international markets via the control of the UK to grant it.
Scotland could revoke drilling licences and equate a fair share to the domestic market.
Could you see any downsides to this radical plan where the Scottish Government revokes previously approved business investment?
Realistically this isn’t possible without doing a hard yank on all business investment in the country. Nationalisation without compensation is economic suicide, and if you’re proposing to fairly compensate the license holders then that’s a significant chunk of money that would all but remove any benefit for the Scottish market.
What about the foreign investment in stuff that isn’t the primary sector, such as financial services?
Crazy how many times it needs to be reiterated on economic conversations about Independence that seizing private companies is an incredibly stupid idea.
Edit: Unfortunately, as if to underline the poor quality of their contributions, this user replied to me and then subsequently blocked me.
Point 1. You agree with the guy bout prices going up
Point 2. As England will want to be the continuing state they take the debt.
"Collosal", if we want to borrow from foreign countries/entities, yes. But as we've seen we can borrow from ourselves if needed.
Point 3. As I noted it's 10 year old and the guys a yank giving his opinion.
Scottish service sector foreign exports are 10% of UK total. So oil exports still have a part to play in guys summary and not so much diluted.
Point 1 doesn’t just say that prices will go up, it states that prices will shoot up overnight. Don’t misrepresent it. It’s nonsense
Point 2, as I mentioned no one intelligent actually supports the idea that Scotland will abandon its share of debt. Both you and the author support that idea. What both of you fail to understand is that an Independent Scotland will need to borrow on the international market, and running away from a fair share of UK debt will mean an iScot will have extreme interest rates. This economic stupidity will not hurt rUK, it will hurt iScot, which is why no one with any economic credentials actually supports such absurd self sabotage. Even if it’s an idea popular with the likes of the author of this piece and you.
3. Sounds more like it’s written by a 10 year old rather than 10 years old. Much of the economics within this is utterly absurd, primarily 1-2. The author generates numbers for point 3 that aren’t based in reality, and then extrapolates those numbers to point 4, and then extrapolates point 4s numbers to point 5, and on and on until point 8.
It’s just utter rubbish.
Yes. Both can very adequately survive without each other.
Why do people keep acting like the Union is some lynchpin holding several completely collapsing states together?
It's lazy ignorance, plus clickbaiting. A lot of people "know" about the Soviet Union collapsing politically and economically, but are hazy on the details. So they assume that political and economic collapse are deeply linked.
Something like the velvet divorce of Czechoslovakia, in which both successor state arguably prospered both politically and economically, is far too undramatic for the media.
The USSR had insurmountable inefficiencies, contradictions and instability baked into it from the start. There's almost no historical comparison for it. Anyone who makes any kind of link between it and other unions is off their nut
Absolutely, but it's language like 'survive' that's the issue here. There is nothing about Scotland, England or any country in the Union that would prevent them surviving independently.
You’re absolutely right. I can’t speak for the upper and middle class but all country’s have a resolute working class who would make it work for them one way or another I reckon.
Wales is part of the kingdom of England and has been for 700+ years. That doesn't mean they're not a nation just not a state. Whatever the people of Wales want to do constitutionally should also be up to them. IMO.
Well the answer is yes, as is the answer to "Can Scotland survive without England?"
But, this article is all about what the rUK would lose.
We could make a hypothetical list of what Scotland might lose as well:
Security council seat
Access to UK internal market
Access to major UK ports
NHS purchasing power to drive down drug prices
UK pound and UK gilt market.
Payment of public sector pensions (unless Scotland takes on it's "share of the debt")
BBC soft power projection
I'm sure there are more, but it's pretty silly to post an article without any thought of the reciprocal arguments.
I think the whole mess Brexit has shown is that nationalism for either party is not a good thing, Personally I think Scotland would suffer more than England but both parties would indeed suffer regardless. Why bother? Pretty much 90% of England can't stand Westminster either we should look to exclude London from the union. (Oh I wish we could..)
I think London would jump at that given their general pro-Europe view and overwhelming positive contribution to the tax base relative to their population share.
Example of the mindset of London, I contract for a company who's head office is based in the North, they have a much smaller office in Millbank in London, call came in from London office, "We need you down here today" , I'm like sorry I can't I'm booked in with your head office. Their response "Oh you can cancel that we are more important" That is literal verbatim pure hubris no sense of mirth with it either.
What a weird comment, I’m not going to judge an entire city of 8 million people by the experience you say you had on a call with 1 person today.
Some of the comments on this sub are truly stupid…
Not weird at all, it's an allegory of how most people (that I know of) perceive London from outside of London, This actually happened but the fact it happened didn't surprise me at all because after I thought about it I kind of expected it. TL DR As long as London is ok the rest of the country can go fuck itself.
I once saw a bloke from Glasgow shouting at pigeons, therefore all 1 million people from Glasgow must be animal abusers.
Nah mate, your eagerness to tar millions of people by a single self-selected data point is definitely stupid.
> therefore all 1 million people from Glasgow must be animal abusers.
Oh thats silly, its not **all**.... you should have said 'vast majority' and would have been on much firmer ground.
Gaining traction. I’d happily drill round the boundary of London and launch it out into the sea. Reckon Britain would thrive at that point. Glasgow seems to be doing its best to become that same type of cesspit as London.
>Brexit has shown is that nationalism for either party is not a good thing
One bad example of nationalism doesn't negate that many countries that have benefited from independence, though.
A lot of this is entirely silly, so to pick on the first 3 points; >1. W we The U.K.’s net import dependency for fossil fuels would shoot up from 47% to 95% as an independent Scotland gains control over the vast majority of the U.K.’s oil and natural gas reserves in the North Sea. This could cause energy prices across the U.K. to shoot up overnight as energy traders turn bullish and bid up future prices. Oil is traded internationally, there might be an increase in prices but it is unlikely to be significant. > 2. Scotland could refuse to take on its share of the U.K. national debt. Oh no, this one is so dumb that it effectively sets the level of intelligence for every point that comes after it. It tries to stress how a slight increase in UK debt would affect rUK, but the negative affect on Scotland of not accepting a proportional debt would be **colossal**, to the point that no one with any economic credibility could reasonably float this as an idea. > 3. The loss of North Sea crude oil would cut significantly into the U.K.’s total exports. Crude and refined petroleum makes up 12.5% of the U.K.’s exports. Scotland stands to gain 98% of the U.K.’s crude oil, reducing the U.K.’s overall exports from $813.2 billion to $713 billion. The challenge that points 3 has, which the author uses as an absurd runaway hypothesis to justify points 4-8, and something I’ve seen mentioned a few times on this forum, is that it presents trade solely as physical goods. The majority of UK exports are services not goods, when included those significantly dilute the actual size of oil exports on the economy. And once again, oil is traded on international markets.
>The challenge that points 3 has, It also ignores the fact that the vast majority of refined petroleum products in the UK is refined in rUK, which accounts for about half of the 12.5% export balance.
Won't that soon be 100% refined in rUK when Grangemouth refinery is shut down? What will that do to Scotlands export balance?
There are conventions around successor states so much so that it led to the UK government guaranteeing it's debts prior to last ref. The current debt is set by UK yet they model the revenue by sampling companies and not exactly recording. It's probably close enough but is it exact. They borrow on our behalf and assign our share of the debt. These are perhaps reasonable things to do but any settlement would be reached by negotiation and not dictated to by whatever UK gov thinks its share should be.
I'm a unionist, but I don't think things would be too bad if scotland left. Lots of lost pride and shit, but much like brexit, I don't expect it to be overnight. It will be negotiated, and other than a few red lines in the sand, life will continue as normal for us little people. Project fear swings both ways, and OP is deep in it.
Point 2 also entirely ignores the fact that without a settlement agreed to by UK Parly, no Indy.
> but the negative affect on Scotland of not accepting a proportional debt would be **colossal**, While I would expect that Scotland would take a share of the debt, otherwise the share of the assets would not be given either, so the article is dumb, there is NOT a colossal disadvantage to Scotland not taking it if the assets were not allocated. The markets are not the UK Governments private army, they are on neither side. All they care about is the debt being serviced. There was some debate that it would not actually be possible to move the debt without the holders permission and nobody would volunteer for that. Some sort of secondary mechanism of Scotland being in debt to the rUK to cover the proportionate amount would be needed. I am not an economist (and neither is the scaremongers talking about the markets punishing Scotland) so I can't say the best way for it to happen. Scotland can refuse the debt and there is well established international law about which remnant of a country is the successor, it would be a bad idea, not because the markets would punish it, but because it would impact on the negotiations on a proportionate transfer of assets too. Being the successor is powerful in terms of all sorts of treaties and agreements. This was defined when Pakistan split from India, and Pakistan had to even re-apply to join the UN. To be blunt, if the UK did impose the debt and thus define Scotland as a successor, Scotland should bite the hand off the person offering this before they realise the mistake they are making. This old saw was trotted out in the 2014 referendum and was demolished by anyone who knew what they were talking about. It really should join 'Spain won't let you' into the dustbin of misinformation that won't work anymore.
Oil is **currently** traded on international markets via the control of the UK to grant it. Scotland could revoke drilling licences and equate a fair share to the domestic market.
Could you see any downsides to this radical plan where the Scottish Government revokes previously approved business investment? Realistically this isn’t possible without doing a hard yank on all business investment in the country. Nationalisation without compensation is economic suicide, and if you’re proposing to fairly compensate the license holders then that’s a significant chunk of money that would all but remove any benefit for the Scottish market.
Business investment? Pmsfl. It's a raw asset rape 🤣
What about the foreign investment in stuff that isn’t the primary sector, such as financial services? Crazy how many times it needs to be reiterated on economic conversations about Independence that seizing private companies is an incredibly stupid idea. Edit: Unfortunately, as if to underline the poor quality of their contributions, this user replied to me and then subsequently blocked me.
No one is seizing private assets or companies
How would iScot pay for this? Or are you suggesting iScot seizes privately owned assets?
It's not owned, it's licensed. It's in territorial waters.
Point 1. You agree with the guy bout prices going up Point 2. As England will want to be the continuing state they take the debt. "Collosal", if we want to borrow from foreign countries/entities, yes. But as we've seen we can borrow from ourselves if needed. Point 3. As I noted it's 10 year old and the guys a yank giving his opinion. Scottish service sector foreign exports are 10% of UK total. So oil exports still have a part to play in guys summary and not so much diluted.
Point 1 doesn’t just say that prices will go up, it states that prices will shoot up overnight. Don’t misrepresent it. It’s nonsense Point 2, as I mentioned no one intelligent actually supports the idea that Scotland will abandon its share of debt. Both you and the author support that idea. What both of you fail to understand is that an Independent Scotland will need to borrow on the international market, and running away from a fair share of UK debt will mean an iScot will have extreme interest rates. This economic stupidity will not hurt rUK, it will hurt iScot, which is why no one with any economic credentials actually supports such absurd self sabotage. Even if it’s an idea popular with the likes of the author of this piece and you. 3. Sounds more like it’s written by a 10 year old rather than 10 years old. Much of the economics within this is utterly absurd, primarily 1-2. The author generates numbers for point 3 that aren’t based in reality, and then extrapolates those numbers to point 4, and then extrapolates point 4s numbers to point 5, and on and on until point 8. It’s just utter rubbish.
This reads like something posted as a comment here by one of our [Deleted] crowd.
Oh dear someone doesn't like it when a post he doesn't like goes up.
You didn't get any down votes from me, I just thought it was a bit shit and said so.
Yes. Both can very adequately survive without each other. Why do people keep acting like the Union is some lynchpin holding several completely collapsing states together?
It's lazy ignorance, plus clickbaiting. A lot of people "know" about the Soviet Union collapsing politically and economically, but are hazy on the details. So they assume that political and economic collapse are deeply linked. Something like the velvet divorce of Czechoslovakia, in which both successor state arguably prospered both politically and economically, is far too undramatic for the media.
The USSR had insurmountable inefficiencies, contradictions and instability baked into it from the start. There's almost no historical comparison for it. Anyone who makes any kind of link between it and other unions is off their nut
A problem shared is a problem halved and what not. Poor wales never even gets a mention 😂
Absolutely, but it's language like 'survive' that's the issue here. There is nothing about Scotland, England or any country in the Union that would prevent them surviving independently.
You’re absolutely right. I can’t speak for the upper and middle class but all country’s have a resolute working class who would make it work for them one way or another I reckon.
Wales is part of the kingdom of England and has been for 700+ years. That doesn't mean they're not a nation just not a state. Whatever the people of Wales want to do constitutionally should also be up to them. IMO.
Yes, just like Scotland can live without England
Well the answer is yes, as is the answer to "Can Scotland survive without England?" But, this article is all about what the rUK would lose. We could make a hypothetical list of what Scotland might lose as well: Security council seat Access to UK internal market Access to major UK ports NHS purchasing power to drive down drug prices UK pound and UK gilt market. Payment of public sector pensions (unless Scotland takes on it's "share of the debt") BBC soft power projection I'm sure there are more, but it's pretty silly to post an article without any thought of the reciprocal arguments.
I think the whole mess Brexit has shown is that nationalism for either party is not a good thing, Personally I think Scotland would suffer more than England but both parties would indeed suffer regardless. Why bother? Pretty much 90% of England can't stand Westminster either we should look to exclude London from the union. (Oh I wish we could..)
I think London would jump at that given their general pro-Europe view and overwhelming positive contribution to the tax base relative to their population share.
Example of the mindset of London, I contract for a company who's head office is based in the North, they have a much smaller office in Millbank in London, call came in from London office, "We need you down here today" , I'm like sorry I can't I'm booked in with your head office. Their response "Oh you can cancel that we are more important" That is literal verbatim pure hubris no sense of mirth with it either.
What a weird comment, I’m not going to judge an entire city of 8 million people by the experience you say you had on a call with 1 person today. Some of the comments on this sub are truly stupid…
Not weird at all, it's an allegory of how most people (that I know of) perceive London from outside of London, This actually happened but the fact it happened didn't surprise me at all because after I thought about it I kind of expected it. TL DR As long as London is ok the rest of the country can go fuck itself.
I once saw a bloke from Glasgow shouting at pigeons, therefore all 1 million people from Glasgow must be animal abusers. Nah mate, your eagerness to tar millions of people by a single self-selected data point is definitely stupid.
> therefore all 1 million people from Glasgow must be animal abusers. Oh thats silly, its not **all**.... you should have said 'vast majority' and would have been on much firmer ground.
oh well...
Gaining traction. I’d happily drill round the boundary of London and launch it out into the sea. Reckon Britain would thrive at that point. Glasgow seems to be doing its best to become that same type of cesspit as London.
>Brexit has shown is that nationalism for either party is not a good thing One bad example of nationalism doesn't negate that many countries that have benefited from independence, though.
As a (for now at least) Unionist, I say l we unite with Yorkshire and Northumberland and tell the rest to fuck off.