There might also be some economic benefits for the NE if financial services companies move south of the border.
If the financial services move south they won't relocate in the North East - they will go to the home counties or the City of London.
There have been countless examples over the past couple of years when companies, such as Amazon and wind farm manufacturers were destined to locate in the North East and were "hijacked" by the Scottish Government who have offered considerable "sweeteners" via Scottish Enterprise, which have caused them to move north of the Border. In days gone by ONE North East would have offered incentives to such companies, but Cameron & Clegg srapped it..:(
Salmond is already committed to cut airport duty so passengers who would have used Newcastle Airport will now be tempted to travel from Edinburgh. Newcastle Airport is really worried - just ask Graham Mason!
The North East could be squeezed between an independent Scotland and the "lucrative south of England".
Scots may be anti-Tory on the whole, but they aren't "anti-English and everything else". They don't expect to be "bailed out" either - sounds like you just made that up.
Give it a yes, and give it a year. I will guarantee not one of the 'free' promises will exist in its present UK form in Scotland.
But allows the Westminster parties to be seen as being tough on Scotland. Don't forget the recent poll which showed that while the majority supported Scotland staying with the UK there was also a lot of support for cutting back on Scottish spending. Would the rUK electorate feel much sympathy for Scots getting slapped down and the budgets cut?
Before another referendum we would need another majority SNP government and the way the system is designed that may not be so easy.
I see it as simple. Westminster delivers in the next parliament or we all vote SNP and have another referendum and were off.
If the financial services move south they won't relocate in the North East - they will go to the home counties or the City of London.
There have been countless examples over the past couple of years when companies, such as Amazon and wind farm manufacturers were destined to locate in the North East and were "hijacked" by the Scottish Government who have offered considerable "sweeteners" via Scottish Enterprise, which have caused them to move north of the Border. In days gone by ONE North East would have offered incentives to such companies, but Cameron & Clegg srapped it..:(
Salmond is already committed to cut airport duty so passengers who would have used Newcastle Airport will now be tempted to travel from Edinburgh. Newcastle Airport is really worried - just ask Graham Mason!
The North East could be squeezed between an independent Scotland and the "lucrative south of England".
What percentage of aero traffic comes into Newcastle?
Frankly independence will be a disaster, the economic argument is flawed with no real detail, I want to know how they plan on raising funds when the capital markets are denied to them if the renege on the share of the UK debt, the total tax intake does not even come close to matching the current spending commitments and that's before we add in things like pubic sector pension liabilities, welfare, defence and everything else we enjoy as part of the UK.
I have read the SNP's white paper and other related material and I consider myself an intelligent man, well I would have to be as I have 25 plus years as a writer in the entertainment history and yet I cannot fathom how the hell they have come to the conclusions and so called policy's they hope to implement after independence.
Nope, were told there will be a Cu almost daily or else we wont pay any debt. I also dont think the Scottish Government funds the state pension right now.
There won't be a currency union. This is just the SNP dreaming
I don't believe we will get everything that they say, I said that in my post and said it would be brainless (to use your word) to think that....
As I said, they have to go in with that stance though, it's the only sensible way to negotiate. They can't take the electorate aside and whisper to each of us individually what they are and are not prepared to concede.
I would like to think most Yes voters understand this.
I think we are in for a few tough years but ultimately, I can't see why we wouldn't be a better country governed by a more accountable government and that's the bottom line.
You come across as someone who has taken all the above on board and are voting optimistically. RE the BIB however, most yes voters I know and have spoken to, are not as reasoned as you. They shrug off the consequences of no CU, not being in the EU, having to most likely adopt the euro to join the EU after a period of being outwith it etc. I feel they really have done next to no reading on the subject outwith of social media or yes pamphleting. I am still not 100% either way but I would have been far more likely to be a convinced yes voter if the SNP had a more honest approach over what will happen after a yes win regarding the CU and the EU.
What percentage of aero traffic comes into Newcastle?
Not sure but it carries over 4 milion passengers a year.
At the present time a lot of Jocks come south of the Border and fly from Newcastle Airport when going on holiday. This would stop and it is likely there would be a reverse drift!
No. In strict terms the UK Treasury (Government) took full responsibility for the debt.
Quote from UK Government Paper dated 13th January 2014 in the series called 'Informing the debate on Scotland's constitutional future'.
"The Treasury has today set out detail on government debt in the event of Scottish independence. The technical note makes clear that the continuing UK Government would in all circumstances honour the contractual terms of the debt issued by the UK Government. An independent Scottish state would become responsible for a fair and proportionate share of the UK’s current liabilities. An entirely separate contract between the continuing UK Government and an independent Scottish state’s Government would need to be established. The respective shares of debt and the terms of repayment would be subject to negotiation."
The statement about an independent Scotland becoming responsible for a share of the debt is not fact - it is a negotiating position on the issue.
It's just an assurance to the bond markets that UK debt will be paid, whether Scotland honours its commitment or not. And Salmond and co would have to be nuts not to pay Scotland's share, as the consequences for Scottish borrowing would be severe.
I don't believe we will get everything that they say, I said that in my post and said it would be brainless (to use your word) to think that....
As I said, they have to go in with that stance though, it's the only sensible way to negotiate. They can't take the electorate aside and whisper to each of us individually what they are and are not prepared to concede.
I would like to think most Yes voters understand this.
I think we are in for a few tough years but ultimately, I can't see why we wouldn't be a better country governed by a more accountable government and that's the bottom line.
It's not a good idea to begin negotiations by saying this is what we want and we'll accept nothing less, just gets peoples backs up. And if you believe the SNP aren't trying to fool their fellow Scots you've more faith in politicians than me. Still, as you accept the SNP won't deliver all it promises, you will be a well informed voter on the 18th.
Didn't Alex Salmond give a number of options if a currency union does not happen?
The bottom line has to be that with independence a Scottish government can make it's own decisions on everything and before someone raises the question of not having full control if the BOE set interest rates then what about those in the Euro Zone who have one central bank and very different political agendas?
Absolutely nothing is guaranteed with a NO vote just as nothing is certain with a YES one. Think about 2017 and what might happen to jobs and markets if the UK pull out of the EU..... just one scenario that makes the NO vote as much of a gamble as the YES vote. Main consideration for me is that we will always get the government we vote for so we shape our own future and that has to be a very attractive prospect.
Not sure but it carries over 4 milion passengers a year.
At the present time a lot of Jocks come south of the Border and fly from Newcastle Airport when going on holiday. This would stop and it is likely there would be a reverse drift!
We are not going to worry about what Heathrow does in 20 days.
Yes, but try borrowing money anywhere in the world if you default.
I'm afraid that in the real world you can always borrow money - the only question really is who are competing to lend to you as that will determine the rate. At present the worst case scenario if Scotland agreed to pay back a share of debt would be a premium of between 0.75 and 1.25% on base rate. If Scotland could not reach an agreement that included debt then the premium as a 'new' borrower would be about 0.75 to 1.5% .
I know that international bankers have all the hallmarks of stupidity (the Daily Mail sells well in the City of London), but they are smart enough to know the difference between somebody who defaults because they can't pay and somebody who leverages a position to best benefit.
No matter which side you are on, facts are facts - iScotland will be able to borrow. iScotland would have no responsibility for the Treasury's borrowings and the iScottish economy would be robust.
In answer to the question about who says an iSctland economy will be robust - Standard and Poors, Moody's and Fitch. All three have all given similar opinions. You'll have to buy some of the opionions, but some are on the web. Seek and you shall find.
I've posted before on the situation with regard to debt and the position for an iScotland if it accepts all or part of the UK debt.
Can I refer you to Neil Wilson's economics blog here:
Mr Wilson espouses 'Modern Monetary Theory' and has a particular slant on economics. He is no special fan of Scotland, the Scottish Government and independence - but he is a scathing critic of economic nonsense when he hears it.
Read, digest and then come back better informed with arguments
Brave heart is the main reason we are evening having this debate. The film is a load of rubbish but most people in their 20s to 30s have seen it and it's been proven that the majority of votes for the yes campaign are the younger voters. Never underestimate the power of Hollywood.
Salmond is already committed to cut airport duty so passengers who would have used Newcastle Airport will now be tempted to travel from Edinburgh. Newcastle Airport is really worried - just ask Graham Mason!
That's a good point. The NI airports got an exemption from APD so I wonder if the same could be done for NCL Probably not.
Personally, I would prefer to see APD scrapped as the Dutch did or significantly reformed
a no vote would be a bigger gamble & as we are into purdah anything westminster might roll out now as a new offer would be illegal under electoral law
I understand that what may be offered is a timetable for additional powers to Holyrood agreed by the main UK political parties. That does not break the rules as it is not an official 'government' proposition.
Only problem for Cameron, Miliband and Clegg is the question that if that is what they propose why did they not allow that option to be made on the ballot paper. (Lots of folks have already voted by post and may now get something very different from what they thought). Voters going to the polls are going to be confused with the proposition that voting NO actually means huge constitutional change. So the NO vote now means Devo Max, if the Westminster parties choose to honour their commitment after the result of the 18th is known.
I'm afraid that in the real world you can always borrow money - the only question really is who are competing to lend to you as that will determine the rate. At present the worst case scenario if Scotland agreed to pay back a share of debt would be a premium of between 0.75 and 1.25% on base rate. If Scotland could not reach an agreement that included debt then the premium as a 'new' borrower would be about 0.75 to 1.5% .
I know that international bankers have all the hallmarks of stupidity (the Daily Mail sells well in the City of London), but they are smart enough to know the difference between somebody who defaults because they can't pay and somebody who leverages a position to best benefit.
No matter which side you are on, facts are facts - iScotland will be able to borrow. iScotland would have no responsibility for the Treasury's borrowings and the iScottish economy would be robust.
In answer to the question about who says an iSctland economy will be robust - Standard and Poors, Moody's and Fitch. All three have all given similar opinions. You'll have to buy some of the opionions, but some are on the web. Seek and you shall find.
I've posted before on the situation with regard to debt and the position for an iScotland if it accepts all or part of the UK debt.
Can I refer you to Neil Wilson's economics blog here:
Mr Wilson espouses 'Modern Monetary Theory' and has a particular slant on economics. He is no special fan of Scotland, the Scottish Government and independence - but he is a scathing critic of economic nonsense when he hears it.
Read, digest and then come back better informed with arguments
I have no need to read, digest etc. No one, and I mean no one, will trust you to repay. The English are the masters of 'f*******' others if they displease us.
I'm afraid that in the real world you can always borrow money - the only question really is who are competing to lend to you as that will determine the rate. At present the worst case scenario if Scotland agreed to pay back a share of debt would be a premium of between 0.75 and 1.25% on base rate. If Scotland could not reach an agreement that included debt then the premium as a 'new' borrower would be about 0.75 to 1.5% .
I know that international bankers have all the hallmarks of stupidity (the Daily Mail sells well in the City of London), but they are smart enough to know the difference between somebody who defaults because they can't pay and somebody who leverages a position to best benefit.
No matter which side you are on, facts are facts - iScotland will be able to borrow. iScotland would have no responsibility for the Treasury's borrowings and the iScottish economy would be robust.
In answer to the question about who says an iSctland economy will be robust - Standard and Poors, Moody's and Fitch. All three have all given similar opinions. You'll have to buy some of the opionions, but some are on the web. Seek and you shall find.
I've posted before on the situation with regard to debt and the position for an iScotland if it accepts all or part of the UK debt.
Can I refer you to Neil Wilson's economics blog here:
Mr Wilson espouses 'Modern Monetary Theory' and has a particular slant on economics. He is no special fan of Scotland, the Scottish Government and independence - but he is a scathing critic of economic nonsense when he hears it.
Read, digest and then come back better informed with arguments
Ah yes, the ratings agencies who told us the western worlds banking model was sound, and gave a triple A, the highest rating, to the multi-billion mountain of financial products they sold.
I see it as simple. Westminster delivers in the next parliament or we all vote SNP and have another referendum and were off.
Simple really.
But then, delivers what? I want to know before I vote this time around. I did say I was cynical about how Westminster would behave so why take the chance? Not really sure I could take this again in five years or so.
I think the SNP have this rose tinted idea of negotiating with the English side, like old mates having a chat and getting what they want. The English political animal is as hard as nails. It has ruled Empires and dominions without demur. It gives nothing, especially to those who we think have slighted us.
Think you'll find a lot of Scots, Welsh and Irish were there helping you "rule Empires and dominions.
It's attitudes and opinions such as this which send folks towards voting yes.
Comments
If the financial services move south they won't relocate in the North East - they will go to the home counties or the City of London.
There have been countless examples over the past couple of years when companies, such as Amazon and wind farm manufacturers were destined to locate in the North East and were "hijacked" by the Scottish Government who have offered considerable "sweeteners" via Scottish Enterprise, which have caused them to move north of the Border. In days gone by ONE North East would have offered incentives to such companies, but Cameron & Clegg srapped it..:(
Salmond is already committed to cut airport duty so passengers who would have used Newcastle Airport will now be tempted to travel from Edinburgh. Newcastle Airport is really worried - just ask Graham Mason!
The North East could be squeezed between an independent Scotland and the "lucrative south of England".
Give it a yes, and give it a year. I will guarantee not one of the 'free' promises will exist in its present UK form in Scotland.
I see it as simple. Westminster delivers in the next parliament or we all vote SNP and have another referendum and were off.
Simple really.
What percentage of aero traffic comes into Newcastle?
I have read the SNP's white paper and other related material and I consider myself an intelligent man, well I would have to be as I have 25 plus years as a writer in the entertainment history and yet I cannot fathom how the hell they have come to the conclusions and so called policy's they hope to implement after independence.
Save us another thread like this and go now
There won't be a currency union. This is just the SNP dreaming
You come across as someone who has taken all the above on board and are voting optimistically. RE the BIB however, most yes voters I know and have spoken to, are not as reasoned as you. They shrug off the consequences of no CU, not being in the EU, having to most likely adopt the euro to join the EU after a period of being outwith it etc. I feel they really have done next to no reading on the subject outwith of social media or yes pamphleting. I am still not 100% either way but I would have been far more likely to be a convinced yes voter if the SNP had a more honest approach over what will happen after a yes win regarding the CU and the EU.
Not sure but it carries over 4 milion passengers a year.
At the present time a lot of Jocks come south of the Border and fly from Newcastle Airport when going on holiday. This would stop and it is likely there would be a reverse drift!
It's just an assurance to the bond markets that UK debt will be paid, whether Scotland honours its commitment or not. And Salmond and co would have to be nuts not to pay Scotland's share, as the consequences for Scottish borrowing would be severe.
It's not a good idea to begin negotiations by saying this is what we want and we'll accept nothing less, just gets peoples backs up. And if you believe the SNP aren't trying to fool their fellow Scots you've more faith in politicians than me. Still, as you accept the SNP won't deliver all it promises, you will be a well informed voter on the 18th.
There will be an election in Scotland and there is nothing to suggest the current SNP will be elected to form that Government.
Who knows what sort of Government will elect and what their policies will be.
But that's the point, it will be Scots voting for a Scottish Government.
The bottom line has to be that with independence a Scottish government can make it's own decisions on everything and before someone raises the question of not having full control if the BOE set interest rates then what about those in the Euro Zone who have one central bank and very different political agendas?
Absolutely nothing is guaranteed with a NO vote just as nothing is certain with a YES one. Think about 2017 and what might happen to jobs and markets if the UK pull out of the EU..... just one scenario that makes the NO vote as much of a gamble as the YES vote. Main consideration for me is that we will always get the government we vote for so we shape our own future and that has to be a very attractive prospect.
We are not going to worry about what Heathrow does in 20 days.
I guarantee your present Nirvana will be gone - as you say, you Scots will have got what you voted for.
I know that international bankers have all the hallmarks of stupidity (the Daily Mail sells well in the City of London), but they are smart enough to know the difference between somebody who defaults because they can't pay and somebody who leverages a position to best benefit.
No matter which side you are on, facts are facts - iScotland will be able to borrow. iScotland would have no responsibility for the Treasury's borrowings and the iScottish economy would be robust.
In answer to the question about who says an iSctland economy will be robust - Standard and Poors, Moody's and Fitch. All three have all given similar opinions. You'll have to buy some of the opionions, but some are on the web. Seek and you shall find.
I've posted before on the situation with regard to debt and the position for an iScotland if it accepts all or part of the UK debt.
Can I refer you to Neil Wilson's economics blog here:
http://www.3spoken.co.uk/2014/03/scottish-independence-myths-national.html
and for a criticism of the Scottish Government position here:
http://www.3spoken.co.uk/2014/03/scottish-independence-modern-money.html
Mr Wilson espouses 'Modern Monetary Theory' and has a particular slant on economics. He is no special fan of Scotland, the Scottish Government and independence - but he is a scathing critic of economic nonsense when he hears it.
Read, digest and then come back better informed with arguments
That's a good point. The NI airports got an exemption from APD so I wonder if the same could be done for NCL Probably not.
Personally, I would prefer to see APD scrapped as the Dutch did or significantly reformed
I understand that what may be offered is a timetable for additional powers to Holyrood agreed by the main UK political parties. That does not break the rules as it is not an official 'government' proposition.
Only problem for Cameron, Miliband and Clegg is the question that if that is what they propose why did they not allow that option to be made on the ballot paper. (Lots of folks have already voted by post and may now get something very different from what they thought). Voters going to the polls are going to be confused with the proposition that voting NO actually means huge constitutional change. So the NO vote now means Devo Max, if the Westminster parties choose to honour their commitment after the result of the 18th is known.
I have no need to read, digest etc. No one, and I mean no one, will trust you to repay. The English are the masters of 'f*******' others if they displease us.
Ah yes, the ratings agencies who told us the western worlds banking model was sound, and gave a triple A, the highest rating, to the multi-billion mountain of financial products they sold.
Ever wished you were better informed?
But then, delivers what? I want to know before I vote this time around. I did say I was cynical about how Westminster would behave so why take the chance? Not really sure I could take this again in five years or so.
Think you'll find a lot of Scots, Welsh and Irish were there helping you "rule Empires and dominions.
It's attitudes and opinions such as this which send folks towards voting yes.
It's a few people per month - why would we worry?