Um, so I take it that independence implies restrictions on out-migration? Or did you only have income taxes in mind?
At any rate as I noted upthread, there is some variance in US sales taxes and income taxes among states. You are correct that adjoining states face certain restraints. But the fact that Scotland has not changed any of its tax rates suggests to me that their disagreements about the role of government with London are pretty small.
Let’s take NY, NJ and Connecticut as examples.
New Jersey: 7%
New York: 8.875%
Connecticut: 6.35%
All of those states are blue states (Democratic party during Presidential elections). They are reasonably similar culturally (though not identical - perish the thought!). All are adjoining, so you can get lower prices by crossing a border. Yet you still see some variance in sales taxes. And there are no sales taxes on clothing in NJ.
There are larger differentials: New Hampshire and Vermont are small adjoining states that provide classic examples of Tiebout sorting, with zero and 7% sales tax rates. ISTM that there is plenty of scope for further experimentation with Scottish (or Welsh) devolution.
And will remain as friends. Scotland will not move away to Mars or the Moon, (much as some of the *Daily Mail/Telegraph *crowd might like it to do).
Scotland will actually get on quite well - largest oil producer in the E.U, largest fisheries fields ditto, currently producing 40% of energy needs via renewables … Scotland will survive well enough.
As will EWaNI, of course. (Well, it does seem like rather a melodious new name for “England, Wales and Northern Ireland:” :).
However, as ‘an Englishman and a Unionist’, you will still be able to visit so as to beat Scotland at rugby or at football. That is traditional, after all.
The more I think about it, the more it seems that the SNP must rue the fact that they didn’t manage to get the middle option of “devo max” on to the ballot, and conversely unionists must be relieved. Although the nationalists would prefer full independence, they know it is going to be a hard sell, which is why they’re pushing this watered-down independence which doesn’t seem to offer that much more autonomy than devo max, if you bear in mind the kind of restraints that would be necessary for the UK to conceivably agree to a currency union.
I reckon that if devo max were on the ballot it would have a good chance of winning, much more than independence does. But it’s an all-or-nothing ballot, and the nationalists may end up getting nothing.
If Scotland don’t get a currency union we won’t pay our share of the debt as the debt isn’t “ours”. No shared assets no shared liability.
It’s not great, looks bad may result in higher borrowing rates for a while and it means Scotland will use Sterling like other countries use the dollar until they either join the EU and get the Euro or create their own currency.
Given the negativity that could surround all that Salmond is refusing to admit that’s the likely outcome. Would it turn Scotland into a second world country - No. But the No campaign would have a field day with it all and too many people would be too frightened to stay the course.
I only had income taxes in mind. If Scotland put up income taxes right now it would be a disaster.
If higher income taxes in an independent Scotland was part of an overall package, so to speak, it would be far more palatable.
As for VAT (our dales tax) , we already pay 20%. I don’t think raising it any further is a good idea!
Totally agree, a lot of people I know that are voting Yes would rather have had devo-max (including myself).
I also know a few No voters that would have voted for devo-max as well.
Independence by gradual means is surely far easier to attain than a leap in the dark.
So we will have a No vote in September then need to wait another decade or so before we can get a chance at devo-max
Incidentally there was a piece from Jeremy Warner in the Telegraph (so, for those of you not familiar with the press here, a pro-union commentator in a conservative newspaper) arguing that Salmond may be right that the remaining UK would consider a currency union.
*"…because there are actually no viable alternatives for an independent Scotland other than monetary union with the rest of the UK.
To deny Scots the pound is therefore to deny them independence. Once this fact sinks in, the bravado of last week’s threats could easily backfire.
If Scots vote for independence, they have to be accommodated. London cannot honourably or constitutionally take any other course."
[…]
Scotland cannot realistically form its own currency while accepting its rightful share of the national debt, for this would be tantamount to default on that debt, throwing both Scottish and British debt management into chaos."*
So there you are, some comfort from the Daily Telegraph of all places.
I’m baffled why people assume that the whole independence thing is a vanity project for Alex Salmond.
You are aware that there will be people voting Yes that don’t vote for SNP in any elections?
I guess he’s saying that the alternative is to throw Scotland to the wolves, economically, and we wouldn’t do that, we’re nice people, we like Scotland, whatever Alex Salmond says about us.
If that is also Salmond’s (unspoken) reasoning, I find it slightly amusing that much of his case is built on positive things about the UK - “we love the pound, and the Queen, and the BBC. Oh, and cricket, and Shakespeare, those things rock too.” (OK, he didn’t say that last part.)
He’s part of a team. Ok, he’s the figurehead but he didn’t come up with currency union himself.
I just don’t like how people seems to focus on him as an individual and use that as part of their reasoning to vote No.
This whole thing is bigger than one man, and whether people think he thinks it is all about him or not is irrelevent.
I’ve heard someone say they won’t vote Yes as they don’t want to see him get what he wants! No other thought involved, just a knee jerk reaction to one politician.
Very true - did Cameron out-manouevre Salmond on the devo-max issue? I forget, maybe Salmond just didn’t have any mechanism to force the issue. Whatever the circumstances, its absence from the ballet paper will bury independence for a generation. There’s no appetite for full monty, close your eyes and step out into the darkness, Scottish independence. A stepwise move in that direction, though, would have been much more viable.
I think he’s more saying that the UK national debt is currently denominated in Sterling. If you want Scotland to accept responsibility for part of it, then Scotland either has to be allowed to keep Sterling, or Scotland has to be allowed renominate it’s part of the debt in whatever currency it adopts.
If that currency isn’t Sterling, then that renomination could itself be considered a default. Say for the sake of argument, Scotland adopts 8 billion of the debt, in it’s new currency, which initially is valued at 1 pound sterling = 1 Caledonian dollar. In 5 years, the Caledonian dollar has weakened by a third :- from the point of view of the debtors, Scotland’s portion of the debt has been devalued by a third. They lent sterling, and want to be repaid in sterling.
From Scotland’s point of view, of course, this is great :- it’s national debt has shrunk by a third. One possible, perhaps probable, outcome of this scenario is that rUK has to make up the deficit.
Of course, rUK could try to resist Scottish renomination, but ultimately Scotland has the argument that it would be grossly unfair to expect them to assume debt in a currency not their own, over which they have no control.
Sterling is not an asset. It is the currency of the UK, and its value lies in being backed by the full faith and credit of the population of the UK and being managed by the Bank of England. If you vote to leave the UK, you vote to leave the currency union currently in force and the rest of the UK’s institutions. As I mentioned above: independence is a matter for Scotland alone to decide. But one tenth of the population of the UK voting to leave does not create an obligation on the remaining nine tenths of the population to enter into a currency union with you, a country that has just voted for independence.
Scotland will get a population share of the UK’s assets. It’s just incredibly unlikely to get a currency union with the rest of the UK.
So in other words the “Yes” campaign are intentionally keeping the likely outcome of independence from Scotland, and asking Scots to vote for independence whilst deliberately keeping vital information about the Scots economy post-independence from them.
The Bank of England is a shared asset though, that’s where the difficulty comes in. How do we get 10% (or whatever) of the BoE?
Of course the Yes campaign are intentionally keeping things from the general public, just like the No campaign is spreading disinformation about what would happen if it was a Yes vote.
Have you ever known any kind of political campaign to have the full truth by both sides disseminated?
It muddies the waters too much to say we want x but if x doesn’t happen we may do y but z is also on the table, there’s the possibility of…etc etc
Nobody is going to vote for that which is why nobody campaigns anything on that basis.
I think the current information is fair enough, they want a currency union and will negotiate post Yes vote for that. If they don’t get it then they will work something else out.
Presumably a Scottish Pound or just using Sterling but not having a currency union. The problem is that the whole thing is unprecedented so nobody knows what’s going to happen, regardless of what the No campaign says.
Should it happen, does anyone seriously think Scotland won’t be using Sterling on September 19th, or after 18 months, or even in the first few years after independence?
I doubt it.
EU membership, the Euro or at least currency union with the UK, probably a united military with them too, even the same monarch … what would Scotland be independent of again?
Why would you think you would? You aren’t going to get 10% of every nuclear submarine. Something else would be given in its place. Further, the Bank of England is entirely publicly owned. Suppose rUK gives Scotland 9% of ownership of the Bank of England, somehow. That just means 9% of the profits generated by the bank accrue to Scotland. It does not mean that Scotland and rUK enter into a currency union, nor does 9% ownership mean the Scottish government gets a seat at the MPC, which is what Salmond wants.
Scotland will not move away to Mars or the Moon, (much as some of the *Daily Mail/Telegraph *crowd might like it to do). 
