Scotland: what's going to happen?

Scotland?

  • I would love to be a Jock

    Votes: 13 31.0%
  • I have no clue, and you Jocks can all sod off

    Votes: 17 40.5%
  • I do not have a TV

    Votes: 12 28.6%

  • Total voters
    42

But aren't they based on figures from the UK gov, as there are no others available?

Edit: @oldwheels make the same point rather better than I and answered my question into the bargain.

Perhaps a better expression of my final point would be "If the EU worked like the UK then all base data on the UK's economy, from which reports by the UKgov were compiled, would have to be provided by Brussels"
 
Last edited:

Rusty Nails

We remember
Location
Here and there
Others may correct me here, but my memory is that Thameslink rebuilding and HS2 were both in there somewhere, on the rather spurious basis that these would 'Benefit Scotland'.

If that's the case it could be argued that rather like Scotland is funding England, instead of the other way around.

Either way, figures put together in London (originally) with the express purpose of making it look like Scotland is a basket case wouldn't seem to be a reliable way of seeing how Scotland may choose to fund itself after it is independent.

If the EU worked like the UK, this would mean the UKgov had no access to figures for its own economy, but had to rely entirely on figures from Brussels.
The Welsh and Northern Irish contribute to those as well and they get nothing out of them either. As one nation, which we are at the moment, what is the option, just those who live along the HS2 line paying for it?

If they are independent they will not have to pay, but that is for the future, as it is now they must contribute.

I do not think they are a "basket case" financially but there is no doubt they would face huge financial and economic challenges that might have to be met by tax increases. Of course they could prosper in the same way that the UK will prosper once we are out of the UK. Or at least will if you only just believe hard enough as Johnson keeps telling us.

I believe that, economically, independence for Scotland from the rest of the UK (its biggest trading partner) is potentially as damaging to it as the UK's departure from the EU.

What I would never argue about is that, from an emotional and personal point of view, independence from the UK may well be the right thing to do for many Scots. Some things are more important than economics.
 
Last edited:
The Welsh and Northern Irish contribute to those as well and they get nothing out of them either. As one nation, which we are at the moment, what is the option, just those who live along the HS2 line paying for it?
It depends. If we have an infrastructure project in my home state of Baden-Württemberg, then Bavaria doesn't always have to pay directly. There may be an extra grant from Federal funds, which means they pay some of the cost indirectly, but that would mean Baden-Württemberg has to apply for the grant, and then representatives of all sixteen states have to agree to it in a majority vote, as our upper house, the Bundesrat, (effectively our version of the House of Lords) is made of representatives of the states.

At the moment the decision to make crossrail or HS2 is made in London and the other nations are told they are contributing to it. That may be reasonable but then saying this is a "Scottish" or indeed Welsh or Northern Irish deficit.


If they are independent they will not have to pay, but that is for the future, as it is now they must contribute.
I think that's one of the arguments made by the Independence movement.


I do not think they are a "basket case" financially but there is no doubt they would face huge financial and economic challenges that might have to be met by tax increases. Of course they could prosper in the same way that the UK will prosper once we are out of the UK. Or at least will if you only just believe hard enough as Johnson keeps telling us.
Possibly, or if they are 'contributing' to infrastructure projects that benefit London, then they'd be better off independent.

I'm not saying that's a black-and-white issue or that there will be only sunlit uplands, but relying on figures generated by the British Civil Service which really support the UK government (That is their job, if you think about it) is a shaky basis as an argument for the union of the UK.
 
Last edited:

Diogenes

brr, summer's over
But aren't they based on figures from the UK gov, as there are no others available?

Edit: @oldwheels make the same point rather better than I and answered my question into the bargain.

Perhaps a better expression of my final point would be "If the EU worked like the UK then all base data on the UK's economy, from which reports by the UKgov were compiled, would have to be provided by Brussels"
Well, no. UK gov figures are only used as one source to help estimate the gaps.

The report is based partly on actual spend and income. Where actual data is not readily available, estimates of income for Scotland are made by the compilers; the data for the estimates are from a variety of sources including pan UK data provided by the UK Government's Office for National Statistics
The SNP relied heavily on the GERS reports when producing their White Paper informing the Indy Ref. At that time they were regarded as authoritative, extensive and trustworthy. Now that they don't paint such a rosy picture (due to the crash in oil prices) they're dismissed by Indy enthusiasts as "experts".

Depressingly familiar.
 

Diogenes

brr, summer's over
It depends. If we have an infrastructure project in my home state of Baden-Württemberg, then Bavaria doesn't always have to pay directly. There may be an extra grant from Federal funds, which means they pay some of the cost indirectly, but that would mean Baden-Württemberg has to apply for the grant, and then representatives of all sixteen states have to agree to it in a majority vote, as our upper house, the Bundesrat, (effectively our version of the House of Lords) is made of representatives of the states.

At the moment the decision to make crossrail or HS2 is made in London and the other nations are told they are contributing to it. That may be reasonable but then saying this is a "Scottish" or indeed Welsh or Northern Irish deficit.




I think that's one of the arguments made by the Independence movement.




Possibly, or if they are 'contributing' to infrastructure projects that benefit London, then they'd be better off independent.

I'm not saying that's a black-and-white issue or that there will be only sunlit uplands, but relying on figures generated by the British Civil Service which really support the UK government (if they don't the aren't doing their job, if you think about it) is a shaky basis as an argument for the union of the UK.

The Barnett formula means spending on HS2 increases the money coming to Scotland

The Scottish Government has been allocated £1.2 billion since Autumn Statement 2016 and will also get Barnett Formula funding following the UK’s investment in HS2. The Scottish Government will decide how much of this Barnett funding should be spent on the Scottish railway network.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/multi-billion-pound-boost-for-scotlands-railways

Same with Crossrail

The Scottish Government has received Barnett consequentials from Crossrail in the usual way
https://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-question/Commons/2017-03-28/69573/
 

Grendel

Veteran
But aren't they based on figures from the UK gov, as there are no others available?

Edit: @oldwheels make the same point rather better than I and answered my question into the bargain.

Perhaps a better expression of my final point would be "If the EU worked like the UK then all base data on the UK's economy, from which reports by the UKgov were compiled, would have to be provided by Brussels"
GERS really isn't worth the paper it's written on, for many reasons. GIGO.
http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2017/03/14/why-economic-data-provided-by-london-will-not-help-the-scottish-independence-debate/
 
Top Bottom