SELECT COMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC AFFAIRS - Parliament

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Professor David Bell—Oral evidence (QQ 1–55) Q53 The Chairman: When you say increase the risk premium, does that mean that for ordinary people their mortgages would go up? Professor Bell: Yes, in effect you are trying to ensure against an unknown outcome. Q54 The Chairman: Is a great deal of work being done, are you aware, on a lot of the issues that we have discussed today in advance of 2014, or do you envisage that a lot of the unravelling would take place after the vote, if there is one? Professor Bell: I think that some work is being done, but I think that there is lots probably still to do. For example, we have discussed financial regulation, but we have not discussed the regulation of competition or communications or the energy market. All of those are additional big issues that would have to be resolved at some point, as well as all the others that we touched upon. Q55 The Chairman: Aside from the issues that you have just mentioned, are there any other issues that we have left out in our questioning today? Professor Bell: None immediately springs to mind. The Chairman: It is comforting at least that we have the agenda fairly clear. Professor Bell, I thank you very much indeed. You have been most helpful to us in beginning to map out our inquiry and in raising all the issues, and we are very grateful to you. 20
British Academy—Written evidence British Academy—Written evidence A response from the British Academy to the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee enquiry, The Economic Implications for the United Kingdom of Scottish Independence The British Academy, established by Royal Charter in 1902, champions and supports the humanities and social sciences across the UK and internationally. It aims to inspire, recognise and support excellence and high achievement. As a Fellowship of over 900 UK scholars and social scientists, elected for their distinction in research, the Academy is an independent and self-governing organisation, in receipt of public funding. INTRODUCTORY COMMENTS 1. In responding to this enquiry, the British Academy does not wish to offer an opinion on whether Scotland should become independent from the United Kingdom, but instead to provide impartial evidence which may be of use to the committee in its current inquiry. 2. The British Academy Policy Centre, in partnership with the Royal Society of Edinburgh (RSE), held two conferences on Scotland’s relationship with the United Kingdom earlier this year: one in London and one in Edinburgh. The conferences were intended to bring further academic evidence and analysis to bear on the current debates surrounding Scotland’s relationship with the rest of the United Kingdom, and to inform and challenge the discussions both inside Scotland and in Westminster about the future of this relationship. 3. The London meeting examined three options that may emerge in the debate (independence; “devolution-max”; and the proposals in the Scotland Act) and explored the implications of each for the relationship between Scotland, the United Kingdom, and the European Union. The second leg of the conference, held in Edinburgh, looked at some of the political and economic challenges of independence, the union and greater devolution. 4. Both events were well attended, and featured presentations by leading academics and other experts. Further information on the conferences is included in Appendix 1. 5. The British Academy and the Royal Society of Edinburgh will be publishing a report of the two conferences later this year. In advance of that, the British Academy wishes to share some of the discussions that arose from the conferences and the expertise with the committee, with special focus being given at the end of this response to precedents set by other countries, thereby answering question five in the committee’s call for evidence. The following evidence is a summary of some of the presentations made and 21
Page 1 and 2: SELECT COMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC AFFAIR
Page 3 and 4: Professor David Bell—Oral evidenc
Page 19: Professor David Bell—Oral evidenc
Page 23 and 24: British Academy—Written evidence
Page 31 and 32: Malcolm Chalmers RUSI—Written evi
Page 33 and 34: Malcolm Chalmers RUSI—Written evi
Page 35 and 36: Mr John Cridland, Mr Graeme Leach a
Page 55 and 56: Dr Karen Henderson—Written eviden
Page 61 and 62: Dr Karen Henderson—Oral evidence
Page 71 and 72:
Dr Karen Henderson—Oral evidence
Page 73 and 74:
Professor Gerald Holtham—Oral evi
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
ICAEW—Written evidence Adopting t
Page 89 and 90:
ICAEW—Written evidence £13.6 bil
Page 91 and 92:
ICAEW—Written evidence 27. Conver
Page 93 and 94:
ICAEW—Written evidence such costs
Page 95 and 96:
ICAEW—Written evidence stability,
Page 97 and 98:
ICAEW—Written evidence We would l
Page 99 and 100:
ICAEW—Written evidence Scotland a
Page 101 and 102:
ICAEW—Oral evidence (QQ 368-429)
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
ICAS—Written evidence country is
Page 121 and 122:
ICAS—Written evidence 10) The abo
Page 123 and 124:
ICAS—Written evidence has been gr
Page 125 and 126:
ICAS—Written evidence Conclusions
Page 127 and 128:
ICAS—Written evidence the nature
Page 129 and 130:
ICAS—Written evidence Scotland fo
Page 131 and 132:
ICAS—Written evidence Why is the
Page 133 and 134:
ICAS—Written evidence Question 5
Page 135 and 136:
ICAS—Written evidence adopt the e
Page 137 and 138:
Mr Paul Ingram and Professor Iain M
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Professor John Kay—Oral evidence
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Professor Alex Kemp—Written evide
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190:
Ms Johann Lamont—Written evidence
Page 191 and 192:
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195 and 196:
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
Page 201 and 202:
Page 203 and 204:
Page 205 and 206:
Mr Graeme Leach, Mr John Cridland,
Page 207 and 208:
Professor Gavin McCrone—Oral evid
Page 209 and 210:
Page 211 and 212:
Page 213 and 214:
Page 215 and 216:
Page 217 and 218:
Page 219 and 220:
Page 221 and 222:
Page 223 and 224:
Page 225 and 226:
Page 227 and 228:
Page 229 and 230:
Page 231 and 232:
Dr Iain McLean FBA FRSE—Written e
Page 233 and 234:
Page 235 and 236:
Page 237 and 238:
Newcastle International Airport Ltd
Page 239 and 240:
Professor Robert Rowthorn—Written
Page 241 and 242:
Page 243 and 244:
Page 245 and 246:
Page 247 and 248:
Page 249 and 250:
Professor Robert Rowthorn—Oral ev
Page 251 and 252:
Page 253 and 254:
Page 255 and 256:
Page 257 and 258:
Page 259 and 260:
Page 261 and 262:
Page 263 and 264:
Page 265 and 266:
Page 267 and 268:
Ms Katie Schmuecker, Professor John
Page 269 and 270:
Page 271 and 272:
Page 273 and 274:
Page 275 and 276:
Page 277 and 278:
Page 279 and 280:
Page 281 and 282:
Page 283 and 284:
Page 285 and 286:
Page 287 and 288:
Professor John Simpson, Ms Katie Sc
Page 289 and 290:
SSE—Written evidence market in Gr
Page 291 and 292:
Professor John Tomaney, Ms Katie Sc
show all

SELECT COMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC AFFAIRS - Parliament

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?