Indyref2 -alternative

[Tibbermoresaint]

4 minutes ago, strichener said:

Yes we do, the Scottish Government has borrowed from the UK treasury as have local authorities.

What is the current level of debt?

[strichener]

1 hour ago, renton said:

Scotland has no legal obligation to take any debt from the UK on independence. This is a well established precedent. That it would take some share of UK debt is seen as a moral obligation - a sign of fiscal responsibility that would help stabilise Scotland's position with the markets. How much of that debt it would take would be open to negotiation.

On the other point you were making about Scot Gov spending priorities on Universities and prescriptions. Scotland until recently could not borrow and could create no deficit. The budget is always thus balanced against the money it is given to spend by the UK government.

Scotland has been able to borrow money since 2012 and has maxed out the increased limits for capital borrowings introduced in the Scotland Act 2016 for each of the last three years.

[strichener]

6 minutes ago, Tibbermoresaint said:

What is the current level of debt?

> 0

[Tibbermoresaint]

5 minutes ago, strichener said:

> 0

A little more precision please.

[renton]

23 minutes ago, Tibbermoresaint said:

If the US genuinely didn't want the UK to have a deterrent it could simply refuse to sell us the missiles. But of course they want us to have a deterrent not simply to spread the cost but to maintain the fiction of NATO being a genuine alliance.

They would welcome the deterrent being based in Georgia. They would welcome the rent and the opportunities for integration and training.

There were a number of acts and laws that covered the sharing and sale of the missile bodies and yes, the US has benefited from reciprocal technology transfer. I don't think that would've persisted through the Cold War but for the placing of the UK deterrent principally under the control of SACEUR. It was a pretty roundabout way we got into it: Originally collaborating on the Skybolt missile to replace Blue Steel for the V-Bomber fleet but when that was cancelled the US offered the technology up for a one off payment. The UK decided it wanted in on Polaris instead and leveraged the Skybolt cancellation to get it after a lot of bartering and reluctance on the US side. Worth also noting that in the last decade the US DoD has also pushed for the UK to abandon the UK deterrent in favour of increased spending on conventional weapons.  No doubt they'd take the rent although integration and training are probably already as good as you'd get given both are NATO nations. 

There are no doubts benefits to basing in the US, there are benefits to keeping the base in Faslane. I doubt we'd ever know until we got to independence which option was actually favoured. I don't think it's clear cut.

Edited August 1, 2019 by renton

[strichener]

2 minutes ago, Tibbermoresaint said:

A little more precision please.

Find out for yourself.  The Scottish Government website would be a good starting point.

[Tibbermoresaint]

7 minutes ago, strichener said:

Find out for yourself.  The Scottish Government website would be a good starting point.

[harry94]

1 hour ago, D.A.F.C said:

Currently we are spending more than we are bringing in. I'm not saying free education and prescriptions are bad but someone has to pay for it.
There is no way banks would allow scotland to walk away from debt responsibility. Each household in Scotland is due money through mortgages and loans as in england and Wales. We created the debt in the same way. Government borrowing for civil infrastructure etc maybe we can argue that.
It's a massively complicated issue and not something that we can just walk away from. Going independent would take a decade to sort out.
Scottish people cant face it now after brexit.
Its game over.

The thing is, that is pretty much almost always going to be true - if you are maintaining a surplus, you are going to be creating that debt elsewhere in the private sector. It's just really the nature of how inflation works and all large economies are in the same boat in that regard.

For what it's worth, debt-GDP is about 80% right now with that vast majority owed to BoE - up from about 40% around the time of the global financial crisis. It's not good but post world war two, debt levels were at 270% and we've only really been lower than where we are now between the 70s-00s.

Like you say, civil infrastructure makes sense but I'd also argue that you are understating the ability of education and good health care in being wise investments in bringing down future health costs further down the line. The issue was that the 70s saw a huge amount of deregulation and that allowed the private sector to burst at the seams in debt, it's the same amount of 'stuff' that's always been there but it's just found it's way into the books differently in addition to greater spending in welfare, reduced tax receipts and other societal costs.

Yes, there is a theoretical increase in interest rates on new debts for a few years in an independent Scotland but I think you are really overstating the impact and what would need to be sorted out. If credible ideas are implemented to use the spending powers to invest in infrastructure and our citizens, that's going to breed a viable economy. There's no reason to suggest that an independent Scotland would fall short of that if there is a commitment for modest taxation increases to match new spending commitments, as Holyrood has pretty much behaved since its inception.

Even just taking trivial issues like the drug rooms or multi-year budgets or even immigration. None of these alone are massive massive problems but they are all decisions that Holyrood would like to take that would be blatantly ecomonically advantageous with overwhelming evidence but are hindered by the current decision framework. In reality, the only thing Westminster practically offers Scotland is lower interest rates for newly accumulated debt for like 5-10 years post independence and that's a relatively tiny amount in comparison anyway. The value of political decisions on a countries well-being is massive.

Edited August 1, 2019 by harry94

[strichener]

11 minutes ago, Tibbermoresaint said:

I can take it that you aren't sufficiently interested in the level of debt to find out for yourself.  No reason for me to waste my time in referencing it for you.  Or perhaps you are in denial that we have debt?

[Tibbermoresaint]

2 minutes ago, strichener said:

I can take it that you aren't sufficiently interested in the level of debt to find out for yourself.  No reason for me to waste my time in referencing it for you.  Or perhaps you are in denial that we have debt?

I'm merely waiting for you to tell us how much debt we have.

[strichener]

26 minutes ago, harry94 said:

The thing is, that is pretty much almost always going to be true - if you are maintaining a surplus, you are going to be creating that debt elsewhere in the private sector. It's just really the nature of how inflation works and all large economies are in the same boat in that regard.

That really is not the case.  Germany has a profitable private sector and a very large current account surplus (over 7% of GDP for many years).  The reason for this is lack of domestic demand together with large exports.

Edited August 1, 2019 by strichener

[strichener]

1 minute ago, Tibbermoresaint said:

I'm merely waiting for you to tell us how much debt we have.

Why?  Do you believe none exists?

[Tibbermoresaint]

Just now, strichener said:

Why?  Do you believe none exists?

You've told us it exists. Are you lying?

[strichener]

1 minute ago, Tibbermoresaint said:

You've told us it exists. Are you lying?

 

If only there was some way that you could verify that it is > £0.

[Tibbermoresaint]

Just now, strichener said:

 

If only there was some way that you could verify that it is > £0.

So how much is it?

[harry94]

3 minutes ago, strichener said:

That really is not the case.  Germany has a profitable private sector and a very large current account surplus (over 7% of GDP for many years).  The reason for this is lack of domestic demand together with large exports.

Private debt to GDP is around 150% and the government have a debt to GDP ratio of 63.9%. They have recorded five years of surplus, all below 2% with most under 1% (not really sure where your figure comes from? - can't find anything near it and this is a historic high as it is) - this isn't entirely unusual and we've had similar time periods. It's been a source of contention for a few years with many economists warning of stagnation due to lack of investment in infrastructure etc, no one is delusional to think it'll last forever or even

That wasn't really the point I was making though, there is a surplus now but debt is an entirely necessary part of the financial system and it has to go somewhere. Some countries are blessed with unique conditions which has allowed them to be insanely rich in natural resources but for the rest of it, there really isn't any cheat. It's all relative and the goal is simply to not let interest rates spiral out of control - there's no fundamental problem that hinders Scotland or the UK with the debt it possesses right now that wouldn't be mitigated by clever investments.

[Jeff Venom]

 
If only there was some way that you could verify that it is > £0.

You're the one saying it is, and being asked to show it. Ffs this is like answering an exam question that asks show something with your working with "no, you show YOUR working".

[strichener]

3 minutes ago, Jeff Venom said:

3 hours ago, strichener said:

 
If only there was some way that you could verify that it is > £0.

You're the one saying it is, and being asked to show it. Ffs this is like answering an exam question that asks show something with your working with "no, you show YOUR working".

No I wasn't being asked to show it, I was being asked how much it was specifically.  The actual original claim was that Scotland had no debt and therefore the onus is on that person to back up their claim.  Of course they cannot do so as it is complete shite.  It is clear from the Scottish Government's budget that they are maxing out their credit card every year.

Sources of Funding for Scottish Budget:
Cash grant	19,940.6
Non Domestic Rate Income	2,853.0
Scottish Rate of Income Tax	11,684.0
Forecast receipts from LBTT and Landfill Tax	747.0
Fines, Forfeitures and Fixed Penalties	25.0
Queen's and Lord Treasurers Remembrancer	5.0
Capital borrowing	450.0
National Insurance Contributions	2,107.5
Total Cash Authorisation	37,812.1

If anyone is actually interested in the amount that the Scottish Government has borrowed they have a website that you can freely browse to find out this information or even look at the Public Works Loan Board for circa £9.7bln of debt to public bodies.

 

[Tibbermoresaint]

10 minutes ago, strichener said:

No I wasn't being asked to show it, I was being asked how much it was specifically.  The actual original claim was that Scotland had no debt and therefore the onus is on that person to back up their claim.  Of course they cannot do so as it is complete shite.  It is clear from the Scottish Government's budget that they are maxing out their credit card every year.

Sources of Funding for Scottish Budget:
Cash grant	19,940.6
Non Domestic Rate Income	2,853.0
Scottish Rate of Income Tax	11,684.0
Forecast receipts from LBTT and Landfill Tax	747.0
Fines, Forfeitures and Fixed Penalties	25.0
Queen's and Lord Treasurers Remembrancer	5.0
Capital borrowing	450.0
National Insurance Contributions	2,107.5
Total Cash Authorisation	37,812.1

If anyone is actually interested in the amount that the Scottish Government has borrowed they have a website that you can freely browse to find out this information or even look at the Public Works Loan Board for circa £9.7bln of debt to public bodies.

 

So how much is the debt?

[Guest]

13 minutes ago, strichener said:

No I wasn't being asked to show it, I was being asked how much it was specifically.  The actual original claim was that Scotland had no debt and therefore the onus is on that person to back up their claim.  Of course they cannot do so as it is complete shite.  It is clear from the Scottish Government's budget that they are maxing out their credit card every year.

Sources of Funding for Scottish Budget:
Cash grant	19,940.6
Non Domestic Rate Income	2,853.0
Scottish Rate of Income Tax	11,684.0
Forecast receipts from LBTT and Landfill Tax	747.0
Fines, Forfeitures and Fixed Penalties	25.0
Queen's and Lord Treasurers Remembrancer	5.0
Capital borrowing	450.0
National Insurance Contributions	2,107.5
Total Cash Authorisation	37,812.1

If anyone is actually interested in the amount that the Scottish Government has borrowed they have a website that you can freely browse to find out this information or even look at the Public Works Loan Board for circa £9.7bln of debt to public bodies.

 

Until such a time when we're in a position to set our own policies and are in complete control of our own finances and resources, then it really matters not what has happened in the past as part of a UK framework as this will have absolutely no bearing on the future.