Cambodia Expats Online: Forum | News | Information | Blog

Having just read an interesting article in the July 10th edition of The Economist.... Scotland (via the Scottish National Party) claim they will be £1,000 better off per head per year when breaking away if they win during the Sept 18th referendum, while the British government claim the Scots will be better off by £1,400 per head per year staying inside the UK. Not being Scottish or from the UK, honest question - how can you be better off while staying the same? Surely you will just be the same the next day and not be better off?

http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/2 ... ave-us-way

404 Not Found

I'm a self-exiled Scot. In my opinion the time for Scotland to have done this and shape its own future was at the time North Sea oil was first discovered. Setting up a sovereign wealth fund along the lines of the Norwegian model then would have now grown to a size that would have helped develop an economy away from a dwindling resource. The Shetland Islands Council actually did this at the time and has succesfully built up an enviable fund to support development on their island. The oil revenue has been squandered by Westminster, the UK national debt is in the trillions and Scotland will have to assume its share of that debt if its a yes vote. To build up a wealth fund while servicing national debt and paying for a bloated public service sector isn't possible unless you raise taxes or cut services/costs, sound familiar.

As it stands there is absolutely nothing hindering Scotland moving ahead from being within the UK but a lot to lose by breaking away, why risk it for marginal supposed benefits. We have a growing and internationally acclaimed medical research/biotech sector, the financial sector has always been strong, the oil sector will remain strong and has enough service companies operating globally to continue to prosper as domestic production resources decline.

I've formed my opinion from considering the views of leading Scottish based business leaders and industrialists involved in global business, and reading pure economical articles. I feel they have a better grasp of reality than the politicians and most definately Alex Salmond.

taranis wrote:
I think the UK has been a massive success in history, inventions, institutions and the like, Scotland has benefited so much by being in the UK. It is doubtful if anyone would have ever heard of Scotland if it had never decided to join the UK.

.

I agree with everything else you say but when suggesting if anyone would have ever heard of Scotland if it had never decided to join the UK, when mentioning "UK" inventions made me laugh. Scotland historically has produced some of the best global business pioneers and inventors in the world - Andrew Carnegie, the Walker's Whiskey brothers, Alexander Graham Bell, John Logie Baird, James Watt, Alexander Fleming, John McAdam etc etc. I'm pretty sure Scotland would have done just fine as a recognised country on it's own for the right reasons.

Biltong wrote:how can you be better off while staying the same? Surely you will just be the same the next day and not be better off?

They mean better off than going independent. As you say, it wouldn't change if Scotland remained in the UK.

taranis wrote:I am British and English, I indeed hope and believe Scotland will vote to remain inside the United Kingdom. I personally have no interest in whether the English or Scottish are better of by some thousand dollars a year, these figures never mean much as no will notice if they have extra cash in their pockets or not, governments always make sure they get your extra cash.

I think the UK has been a massive success in history, inventions, institutions and the like, Scotland has benefited so much by being in the UK. It is doubtful if anyone would have ever heard of Scotland if it had never decided to join the UK.

An independent Scotland can of course work, but would it be successful? I fear it would be a rocky road and I would not want Salmon to be the leader, he seems a toad like man who cannot be trusted to lead a country to success.

Well said.
I am Scottish and live in Scotland.
The SNP won't answer questions on currency, EU membership and the economy. Independence isn't actually on the table. It's a farce. You can't be truly independent without your own currency and monetary policy.

Cowshed Cowboy wrote:I'm a self-exiled Scot. In my opinion the time for Scotland to have done this and shape its own future was at the time North Sea oil was first discovered. Setting up a sovereign wealth fund along the lines of the Norwegian model then would have now grown to a size that would have helped develop an economy away from a dwindling resource.

I always think comparisons to Norway are flawed. Norway has ridiculous high taxation. That's why they can build a wealth fund. Our politicians would waste money anyway. The parliament building wasn't needed, yet they spent almost a billion on it. Salmond blew £50k in USA and was flying chefs over. We didn't need a new hampden stadium, and the Edinburgh tram project was a disaster. How can we trust these people, with little experience, to safe guard our future?

UKJ wrote:

taranis wrote:I am British and English, I indeed hope and believe Scotland will vote to remain inside the United Kingdom. I personally have no interest in whether the English or Scottish are better of by some thousand dollars a year, these figures never mean much as no will notice if they have extra cash in their pockets or not, governments always make sure they get your extra cash.

I think the UK has been a massive success in history, inventions, institutions and the like, Scotland has benefited so much by being in the UK. It is doubtful if anyone would have ever heard of Scotland if it had never decided to join the UK.

An independent Scotland can of course work, but would it be successful? I fear it would be a rocky road and I would not want Salmon to be the leader, he seems a toad like man who cannot be trusted to lead a country to success.

Well said.
I am Scottish and live in Scotland.
The SNP won't answer questions on currency, EU membership and the economy. Independence isn't actually on the table. It's a farce. You can't be truly independent without your own currency and monetary policy.

I agree, and the transaction costs of operating a separate currency would place an extra burden on business that isn't there at the moment. Seems to me that Salmond and the SNP want to cherry pick on their own terms, which is totally unrealistic.

I think Salmond showed he's out of depth on business matters when he was suckered in by Donald Trump's promises for his Aberdeen golf development.

Cowshed Cowboy wrote:Seems to me that Salmond and the SNP want to cherry pick on their own terms, which is totally unrealistic.

Agreed. Lamont the labour leader made a good point. She pointed out that SNP have been painting George Osbourne as the bad guy, yet are claiming he will give them favourable terms in currency negotiations! SNP's claims are paper thin. I am amazed so much of the electorate are falling for it. Scotland can't afford free university education for whatever EU students want it, nor the welfare they are hinting at.

What will happen for Scots who want to stay with the UK? Could they move over the border before the official independence day, no restrictions?

As a Londoner living overseas, I don't really give a shit what they do. That said, SNP have been quoted as saying that if Scotland wins independence it will want to keep the pound, the monarchy and the BBC.

Really, that's a bit like divorcing the wife but telling her you'll be home for tea at night and still expect sex.