Calendar An icon of a desk calendar. Cancel An icon of a circle with a diagonal line across. Caret An icon of a block arrow pointing to the right. Email An icon of a paper envelope. Facebook An icon of the Facebook "f" mark. Google An icon of the Google "G" mark. Linked In An icon of the Linked In "in" mark. Logout An icon representing logout. Profile An icon that resembles human head and shoulders. Telephone An icon of a traditional telephone receiver. Tick An icon of a tick mark. Is Public An icon of a human eye and eyelashes. Is Not Public An icon of a human eye and eyelashes with a diagonal line through it. Pause Icon A two-lined pause icon for stopping interactions. Quote Mark A opening quote mark. Quote Mark A closing quote mark. Arrow An icon of an arrow. Folder An icon of a paper folder. Breaking An icon of an exclamation mark on a circular background. Camera An icon of a digital camera. Caret An icon of a caret arrow. Clock An icon of a clock face. Close An icon of the an X shape. Close Icon An icon used to represent where to interact to collapse or dismiss a component Comment An icon of a speech bubble. Comments An icon of a speech bubble, denoting user comments. Comments An icon of a speech bubble, denoting user comments. Ellipsis An icon of 3 horizontal dots. Envelope An icon of a paper envelope. Facebook An icon of a facebook f logo. Camera An icon of a digital camera. Home An icon of a house. Instagram An icon of the Instagram logo. LinkedIn An icon of the LinkedIn logo. Magnifying Glass An icon of a magnifying glass. Search Icon A magnifying glass icon that is used to represent the function of searching. Menu An icon of 3 horizontal lines. Hamburger Menu Icon An icon used to represent a collapsed menu. Next An icon of an arrow pointing to the right. Notice An explanation mark centred inside a circle. Previous An icon of an arrow pointing to the left. Rating An icon of a star. Tag An icon of a tag. Twitter An icon of the Twitter logo. Video Camera An icon of a video camera shape. Speech Bubble Icon A icon displaying a speech bubble WhatsApp An icon of the WhatsApp logo. Information An icon of an information logo. Plus A mathematical 'plus' symbol. Duration An icon indicating Time. Success Tick An icon of a green tick. Success Tick Timeout An icon of a greyed out success tick. Loading Spinner An icon of a loading spinner. Facebook Messenger An icon of the facebook messenger app logo. Facebook An icon of a facebook f logo. Facebook Messenger An icon of the Twitter app logo. LinkedIn An icon of the LinkedIn logo. WhatsApp Messenger An icon of the Whatsapp messenger app logo. Email An icon of an mail envelope. Copy link A decentered black square over a white square.

Dunleavy “Demanding but feasible timetable for transition”

Post Thumbnail

How the UK state works is very well known. But how a fully independent Scottish state would work, and how costly it would be to set up, has created a lot of concern, even dread in some quarters.

Our report essentially shows that the Scottish Government has put in place a timetable for transition that is demanding but feasible.

We can say with some confidence that Scotland’s immediate set-up costs are likely to be constrained we suggest around £200m in one-off costs to create its own versions of a few but big and important existing UK department capabilities.

The UK Treasury has suggested that Scotland could also face IT and new administration costs in taxation and benefits, of perhaps as much as £900m. But these would be systems that come on line only in 2018 to 2021, and they would endure for many years. They hence take on the character of investments, where future running cost savings would also be sought.

The two absolutely critical influences on Scotland’s likely overall transition costs are the realism of Scottish government planning for independence, which generally seems high. It does assume, however, that a moderate and rationalist approach will be taken by the Government in Westminster.

The stance that London ministers would actually take in negotiations over the transition remains largely undefined. None of these conclusions offer any positive reasons for voters to choose Yes or No, for that was not our purpose.

Just because a step might be feasible, and not too costly, is not in itself a reason to take it.

Scotland’s voters will make up their own minds what to do, and for their own reasons. But they can be broadly confident that, whatever the majority decides, future Scottish Government will be generally effective and well organised.

Patrick Dunleavy is Professor of Political Science and Public Policy at the London School of Economics.