Scottish independence

BonnieSituation

First Up wrote: »

Yes, but it needs to happen quickly and clearly enough to allow for positive business and investment decisions. There isn't time for politics to get in the way of that.

And that will likely happen after independence.

Why are you so eager to put the cart before the horse here?

Positive business and investment decisions will happen.

It's not as if Scotland is some remote uncivilised appendage.

Professor Moriarty

BonnieSituation wrote: »

And that will likely happen after independence.

Why are you so eager to put the cart before the horse here?

Positive business and investment decisions will happen.

It's not as if Scotland is some remote uncivilised appendage.

Indeed but comprehensive research by the LSE predicts that Scottish independence will cost at least £11 billion per annum. In terms of GDP, it would cause a fall of at least twice that of leaving the EU as part of the UK. Rejoining the EU wouldn't make much of a difference economically. This research focuses on trade alone and doesn't take into account other negatives such as decreases in inward investment. I wonder how much this would play into people's minds if there were another referendum?

First Up

BonnieSituation wrote: »

And that will likely happen after independence.

Why are you so eager to put the cart before the horse here?

Positive business and investment decisions will happen.

It's not as if Scotland is some remote uncivilised appendage.

There's no second prize in competition for FDI. They won't have the luxury of taking their time over those decisions.

BonnieSituation

First Up wrote: »

There's no second prize in competition for FDI. They won't have the luxury of taking their time over those decisions.

Please do go on.

BonnieSituation

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Indeed but comprehensive research by the LSE predicts that Scottish independence will cost at least £11 billion per annum. In terms of GDP, it would cause a fall of at least twice that of leaving the EU as part of the UK. Rejoining the EU wouldn't make much of a difference economically. This research focuses on trade alone and doesn't take into account other negatives such as decreases in inward investment. I wonder how much this would play into people's minds if there were another referendum?

Based on 2014, the negatives will be accentuated to such a cacophony I'm surprised that there's no calls for us to rejoin the UK, such a risk and a disaster would independence for Scotland for be. It's mind numbing to read how awful it will be for them and how the plans for independence aren't decided down to the most minute of details.

The standards that the SNP and the Scottish government are held to, really are something else.

Professor Moriarty

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Based on 2014, the negatives will be accentuated to such a cacophony I'm surprised that there's no calls for us to rejoin the UK, such a risk and a disaster would independence for Scotland for be. It's mind numbing to read how awful it will be for them and how the plans for independence aren't decided down to the most minute of details.

The standards that the SNP and the Scottish government are held to, really are something else.

The ideal of Scottish independence is understandable especially after the Tory Brexit. However, I wouldn't see the economics of independence as negatives more like realities. There is no doubt such realities will surface in public debates. I wonder what impact those realities would have on lukewarm Yes voters or Don't Knows, given that Yes/No margins are so tight.

First Up

BonnieSituation wrote:

Please do go on.

Scotland is part of the UK single market, the world's sixth largest. There is no guarantee of an open border after independence and if Scotland rejoined the EU, a trade border with England would be inevitable.

That would also complicate Scottish exports transiting through England en route to continental Europe, as most currently do.

These uncertain prospects for Scottish trade undermine it's attraction for investment. The Scottish government would face urgent challenges to find ways to reassure both local and international business.

English regions will waste no time trying to persuade companies to re-locate south of the border and other EU countries (especially Ireland) will be trying the same.

Capt'n Midnight

First Up wrote: »

English regions will waste no time trying to persuade companies to re-locate south of the border and other EU countries (especially Ireland) will be trying the same.

Unless you provide specific examples of how things will change you are just naysaying.

But you have in this case and the answer is -

What exactly can English regions do about the increase in Corporation Tax in the UK budget ? Game Over.




The sky won't fall if/when Scotland becomes independent.

We all know there won't be any major changes on borders or currency or freedom of movement on independence because there can't be because until there are new treaties or legislation it would be illegal.

CTA will still be in place, Scottish pound will still be backed by English Sterling deposits. BT Openreach will still be rolling out broadband , slowly. The usual brands will still be on the shelves. Highlands and Islands will still have poorer delivery options. Mail will still move between the same depots.


Scotland already has a different legal system. Most large organisations already have a separate Scottish division so most of any needed changes are already in place.

Water John

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Indeed but comprehensive research by the LSE predicts that Scottish independence will cost at least £11 billion per annum. In terms of GDP, it would cause a fall of at least twice that of leaving the EU as part of the UK. Rejoining the EU wouldn't make much of a difference economically. This research focuses on trade alone and doesn't take into account other negatives such as decreases in inward investment. I wonder how much this would play into people's minds if there were another referendum?

Are we to accept the LSE as an impartial observer/analyst? Wouldn't think so.

First Up

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

The sky won't fall if/when Scotland becomes independent.


We all know there won't be any major changes on borders or currency or freedom of movement on independence because there can't be because until there are new treaties or legislation it would be illegal.

I'd like to think the Scottish government and the SDA are a bit more aware and better prepared than that.

It doesn't need the sky to fall in to give investors cause to worry and make contingency plans. Any uncertainty is extra baggage and there would be more than enough of that over what independence could mean for access to the English and EU markets.

Professor Moriarty

Water John wrote: »

Are we to accept the LSE as an impartial observer/analyst? Wouldn't think so.

I would. It's academic research conducted by the Centre for Economic Performance which is an interdisciplinary research institute within the LSE. The LSE is a well-respected institution and the CEP is one of the world's most prestigious economic institutes. It was done in conjunction with the City University of Hong Kong.

Here is the research paper in its entirety. It has quite a few interesting facts such as the fact that 61% of Scotland's current trade is with the rest of the UK.

A Dub in Glasgo

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Indeed but comprehensive research by the LSE predicts that Scottish independence will cost at least £11 billion per annum. In terms of GDP, it would cause a fall of at least twice that of leaving the EU as part of the UK. Rejoining the EU wouldn't make much of a difference economically. This research focuses on trade alone and doesn't take into account other negatives such as decreases in inward investment. I wonder how much this would play into people's minds if there were another referendum?

I would not call it 'comprehensive research'. Was it actually peer reviewed before release? The authors thanked a Better Together figurehead for his input. Predicting figures a generation ahead in the current world is a fools game anyway

This newspaper discusses their work

https://www.thenational.scot/news/19063113.independence-hit-scottish-economy-harder-brexit/

Professor Moriarty

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

I would not call it 'comprehensive research'. Was it actually peer reviewed before release? The authors thanked a Better Together figurehead for his input. Predicting figures a generation ahead in the current world is a fools game anyway

This newspaper discusses their work

https://www.thenational.scot/news/19063113.independence-hit-scottish-economy-harder-brexit/

With respect, that's a very silly and biased 'fact check' piece. Disregarding its childish focus on personal associations with tenuous links, it makes some seriously stupid statements and asks even more stupid questions. For example:

"Why, for instance, would an independent Scotland inside the EU not have the same, free trade arrangements with England as Northern Ireland shares as a result of the Brexit agreement?"

This level of ignorance is rife throughout the article.

You must ask yourself if the academics in the LSE/CEP and the City University of Hong Kong have agendas and if they are prepared to sacrifice academic integrity in pursuit of those agendas.

A Dub in Glasgo

You are claiming CEP are impartial and have no side on this, they do and demonstrabely so

Professor Moriarty

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

You are claiming CEP are impartial and have no side on this, they do and demonstrabely so

Hmmm. Academic research by two prestigious universities versus a short and factually incorrect opinion piece in a biased newspaper with a circulation of 9,000. I know where I would put my money.

A Dub in Glasgo

I don't hold academia in this field in high regard. Was it not the Queen, whilst visting LSE, famously asked the academics 'Why they did you not predict the crash in 2008' LSE had to write to the Queen to state because.....

Professor Moriarty

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

I don't hold academia in this field in high regard. Was it not the Queen, whilst visting LSE, famously asked the academics 'Why they did you not predict the crash in 2008' LSE had to write to the Queen to state because.....

Well, you're entitled to hold that opinion. Problem is, if we don't trust the experts we might morph into another famous Scotsman. Not much of a nationalist, mind.

A Dub in Glasgo

There is nothing wrong with experts but there is something very much wrong with experts who pass their work off as impartial

Professor Moriarty

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

There is nothing wrong with experts but there is something very much wrong with experts who pass their work off as impartial

The 'fact check' opinion piece aside, in what way is the work not impartial?

Capt'n Midnight

First Up wrote: »

I'd like to think the Scottish government and the SDA are a bit more aware and better prepared than that.

They are. The original plan for post independence is from 2013.

Westminster still doesn't have a plan for what happens after Brexit as evidenced by the sabre rattling which might even derail the EU's ratification of the deal.

It doesn't need the sky to fall in to give investors cause to worry and make contingency plans. Any uncertainty is extra baggage and there would be more than enough of that over what independence could mean for access to the English and EU markets.

Compared to what's happening on an ongoing basis in the UK there may be more certainty in a independent Scotland. And corporation tax can't be ignored.

Businesses can compare Scotland to how the Tories treat the vehicle and steel industry.

First Up

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

They are. The original plan for post independence is from 2013.

In 2013 it was assumed an independent Scotland would rejoin the EU and would remain in a single market with the rest of the UK. A bit has happened since.

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

Compared to what's happening on an ongoing basis in the UK there may be more certainty in a independent Scotland. And corporation tax can't be ignored.

A few percent corporation tax doesn't compensate for the risk to their UK and EU business.

Capt'n Midnight

First Up wrote: »

In 2013 it was assumed an independent Scotland would rejoin the EU and would remain in a single market with the rest of the UK. A bit has happened since.

Good now that you've accepted that there are plans you may also be able to accept that , shock horror !, they've been updated.

People who were 8 years old then are now able to vote in the upcoming SNP elections.

A few percent corporation tax doesn't compensate for the risk to their UK and EU business.

Tell that to the IDA.

What risks ? Any answer would have to compare the risks of staying in a Tory controlled UK which seems tailored to favour disaster capitalism.


Again you are spreading Fear Uncertainty and Doubt in the face of all the established facts.

Peregrinus

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Indeed but comprehensive research by the LSE predicts that Scottish independence will cost at least £11 billion per annum. In terms of GDP, it would cause a fall of at least twice that of leaving the EU as part of the UK. Rejoining the EU wouldn't make much of a difference economically. This research focuses on trade alone and doesn't take into account other negatives such as decreases in inward investment. I wonder how much this would play into people's minds if there were another referendum?

First Up wrote: »

There's no second prize in competition for FDI. They won't have the luxury of taking their time over those decisions.

Brexit means a big fall in FDI in Scotland (as part of the UK) anyway. Neither option in an independence referendum will offer a return to pre-Brexit conditions favourable to FDI.

Peregrinus

I would take the LSE report very seriously. I do not see any evidence of bias, either in the report or in anything "A Dub in Glasgow" says.

The takeaway is that independence is more economically damaging to Scotland than Brexit was, and rejoining the EU will do little or nothing to offset this. The economic "drag" will persist until Scottish trade dependence on the rest of the UK is reversed, which may take a generation. Couple of thoughts:

1. The parallel with the experience of Ireland is obvious. But nobody seriously doubts that Irish independence was a good thing, or argues (or ever argued) that it should be reversed. (And we have a useful control in Ireland, in that part of the country did not become independent but remained within the UK, so we can compare the outcome of indedpence versus the outcome of remaining in the UK. Socially, politically and economically, the comparison does not favour remaining in the UK, I think it's fair to say.)

2. The parallel with Brexit is also obvious - especially the bit about it taking a generation for Scotland to adjust adequately to the new sitaution so as to offset the damage caused.

3. But there's also an obvious disjunction with Brexit. The Brexiter belief in the loss of sovereignty entailed in EU membership is mostly delusion, whereas the loss of sovereignty entailed in UK membership is real. A vote for independence may impose significant economic costs on Scotland, but a vote against does not protect it against the imposition of significant economic costs, as the last five years - and counting - vividly illustrates. So this is not a straight choice between prosperity and poverty; this is a choice between expensive dependence and - for the forseeable future - more expensive independence.

Nor can we dismiss Brexit as a one-off aberration. It's still happening. The British are still doubling down on making Brexit worse for Scotland (and the rest of the UK) than it needs to be. And the English electorate seem happy with this, and the Labour opposition uncritical, so there is no reason to expect any change. It's not hard to position a vote against independence as a vote to remain shackled to this apparent train-wreck of a country. Independence may cost, but what might the cost of not seeking independence be?

First Up

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

Tell that to the IDA.

The IDA is well aware of the factors influencing investment decisions. Scotland is not a low cost location (neither is Ireland). Companies locate there for access to skills, materials and markets. If an independent Scotland can't guarantee any one of those, the corporation tax rate won't make any difference.

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

What risks ? Any answer would have to compare the risks of staying in a Tory controlled UK which seems tailored to favour disaster capitalism.

Scottish (and foreign owned) businesses with high dependence on the UK might reach a different conclusion.

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

Again you are spreading Fear Uncertainty and Doubt in the face of all the established facts.

Project Fear... Where did I hear that before?

Peregrinus

First Up wrote: »

The IDA is well aware of the factors influencing investment decisions. Scotland is not a low cost location (neither is Ireland). Companies locate there for access to skills, materials and markets. If an independent Scotland can't guarantee any one of those, the corporation tax rate won't make any difference.

Yeah, but.

Brexit has already reduced the potential for Scotland to attract FDI - previously, it was a possiblity for investments selling to anywhere in the EU/EEA; now, just for investments selling to the UK. And since the UK economy is going to take a hammering over the next few years, it's not a hugely attractive market to sell into or invest for.

In other words, the opportunity cost of independence for Scotland in terms of diminising its attractiveness as a location for FDI is now greatly reduced, since Brexit ensures that it's already not very attractive for FDI. Independence offers an opportunity to do something about that, in terms of lowering CT rates and restoring access to the EU/EEA. Is that likely to be enough to offset the FDI downside of independence, which is the loss of direct investment from England/Wales in investments serving the England/Wales market? I haven't seen any modelling of that. (The LSE report says nothing about investment one way or the other; it's exclusively about trade.) Have you?

murphaph

One thing I may have missed...can the Scottish government begin negotiations with the EU even before Scotland secedes from the UK?

Would there be any possibility of Scotland seamlessly transitioning from the UK to the EU or is a period of of membership of neither of unknown duration predetermined?

Assuming the answer to the above is 'no',
could Scotland at least negotiate to copy and paste the UK's TCA with the EU (less than perfect that it is) as an interim measure on the road to full EU membership?

Or would Scotland need to go about this differently, negotiating a TCA with England before formally seceding from the UK, before beginning negotiations with the EU? I can see an independent Scotland getting trapped in limbo if it went that route. They would have left the UK but still be largely reliant on UK trade but with no voice in London. Sound familiar? They may then be too afraid to risk upsetting London in an effort to join the EU and could get bogged down in this halfway house situation.

I think in fairness the Scots should know the direction of travel before being asked to vote on independence in isolation. The question should not just be a brexit style "Do you want to leave or remain in the UK" but should include the choice to strive for EU membership afterwards, or not.

First Up

Peregrinus wrote:

Brexit has already reduced the potential for Scotland to attract FDI - previously, it was a possiblity for investments selling to anywhere in the EU/EEA; now, just for investments selling to the UK. And since the UK economy is going to take a hammering over the next few years, it's not a hugely attractive market to sell into or invest for.

The ideal answer of course is access to both. Scottish SMEs face the same challenges as their Irish counterparts in diversifying from the UK into continental markets and they have even greater geographic challenges and dependence on Britain to get there.

Ireland isn't the only EU country offering Scottish companies a shiny new EU home. That's why the Scottish government needs to hurry.

First Up

murphaph wrote:

One thing I may have missed...can the Scottish government begin negotiations with the EU even before Scotland secedes from the UK?

I would expect plenty of chat through back channels but nothing formal can start until Scotland is a sovereign state.

Peregrinus

murphaph wrote: »

One thing I may have missed...can the Scottish government begin negotiations with the EU even before Scotland secedes from the UK?

Formally, no. Only a sovereign state can apply to accede to the EU, or make an Association Agreement with the EU (the usual precursor to accession).

Informally, if there has been a vote for independence, and if the UK has accepted that and a transition to independence has begun, I don’t see any reason why their can’t be conversations with the Scottish government about a path to accession to be followed after independence.

murphaph wrote: »

Would there be any possibility of Scotland seamlessly transitioning from the UK to the EU or is a period of of membership of neither of unknown duration predetermined?

There’s no predetermined period during which a state must have been a sovereign independent state before it can accede to the Union. But I don’t think that accession on independence day is very realistic.

An Association Agreement on day 1 might be. With the co-operation of the UK, it would even be possible for the UK to enter into an association agreement with the EU on Scotland’s behalf, and applying only to Scotland, as part of the transition to independence, with independent Scotland “inheriting” the benefit and burden of the Association Agreement on independence day.

murphaph wrote: »

Assuming the answer to the above is 'no',
could Scotland at least negotiate to copy and paste the UK's TCA with the EU (less than perfect that it is) as an interim measure on the road to full EU membership?

With the agreement of the UK and the EU, Scotland could declare that it accepts the terms of the TCA, and it if so would continue to apply to independent Scotland in the same way that, e.g. GATT and the ECHR and many other treaties to which the UK is party would transfer seamlessly to independent Scotland. But the Scots might not want that; they might want a more ambitious Association Agreement in place from day 1.

murphaph wrote: »

I think in fairness the Scots should know the direction of travel before being asked to vote on independence in isolation. The question should not just be a brexit style "Do you want to leave or remain in the UK" but should include the choice to strive for EU membership afterwards, or not.

I don’t think there’s any doubt about the direction of travel; independent Scotland will definitely be pursuing full membership of the EU, and I would expect all-party agreement, in any referendum campaign, that if Scotland does become independent, it should seek to accede to the EU.

(The referendum will likely be one question; anything else would be attacked as an attempt to bamboozle the electorate/split the vote/sow confusion. So there will be no option to vote for independent Scotland but not to be a member of the EU. Anybody who favours that combination should either vote against independence and wait until there is a referendum which offers the choice they want, or vote for independence in the expectation that any Treaty of Accession will be the subject of a separate referendum, and they can campaign against it then.)

But all that can be offered in the independence referendum campaign is an aspiration to EU membership and a commitment that Indy Scotland will pursue it. There will be no agreement with the EU about the timescale to full membership, the terms of any Association Agreement in the interim, etc. The EU will not talk about such things with a non-independent Scottish government without the blessing of the UK which, in advance of any referendum, will certainly not be forthcoming.

So people voting in the referendum will have to make their own judgments about whether the Scottish aspiration to EU membership is realistic and whether the EU would welcome a Scottish application and be keen to facilitate it. They’d have to take it on trust that the implementation of this programme by the Scottish government would not be the shît-show of lies, deceit, delusion, incompetence, and farce that Brexit has been. But I think that’s a reasonable hope. Plus there’s a sporting chance that the Scottish government will commit, in the independence campaign, to a referendum on the Treaty of Accession, once negotiated. (That’s pretty standard these days; in the 2004 Accession, 9 out of the ten acceding countries held a referendum.)