Scottish economy running at a £15bn deficit

[hibs0666]

Just as well we're part of a much larger economy.

GERS 2014-15 report (http://www.gov.scot/Publications/2016/03/3692)

[lyonhibs]

Just as well we're part of a much larger economy.

GERS 2014-15 report (http://www.gov.scot/Publications/2016/03/3692)

A much larger economy running at a banging deficit of £60 billion mind :greengrin Albeit that is a much smaller % of UK GDP, so your point does stand.

[JeMeSouviens]

Just as well we're part of a much larger economy.

GERS 2014-15 report (http://www.gov.scot/Publications/2016/03/3692)

So Scotland's economy is pish but let's not try and take control and make it better, let's sponge off the English?

Depressing.

[RyeSloan]

So Scotland's economy is pish but let's not try and take control and make it better, let's sponge off the English? Depressing.

Oh come on...these figures are dire. The SNP has used Tory austerity to take the blame for everything yet this year we would have have a near 10% budget deficit...what effect would that have on public spending?

As was predicted basing a nations spending on one key revenue source (and like it or not we don't have 30 years worth of a sovereign wealth fund to fall back on) was a highly dangerous route to take. These figures prove that fact and show just what a gamble the SNP were proposing

If the independence ref had went the other way Scotland could have been days away from being independent and already running a deficit bigger than any meaningful economy in the world!

https://www.gfmag.com/global-data/economic-data/public-deficit-percentage-gdp

[snooky]

Just as well we're part of a much larger economy.

GERS 2014-15 report (http://www.gov.scot/Publications/2016/03/3692)

Nae probs - convert it to $mackeroonies and we're laughing.

[JeMeSouviens]

Oh come on...these figures are dire. The SNP has used Tory austerity to take the blame for everything yet this year we would have have a near 10% budget deficit...what effect would that have on public spending?

As was predicted basing a nations spending on one key revenue source (and like it or not we don't have 30 years worth of a sovereign wealth fund to fall back on) was a highly dangerous route to take. These figures prove that fact and show just what a gamble the SNP were proposing

If the independence ref had went the other way Scotland could have been days away from being independent and already running a deficit bigger than any meaningful economy in the world!

https://www.gfmag.com/global-data/economic-data/public-deficit-percentage-gdp

Ok, so independence starting now would've been extremely tough. But that ship sailed.

Looking forward, we can't sustain current levels of public spending on our own revenue base. So is the answer really that we just want to leech off England*?


* and thanks to Barnett with the direct consequence of lower public spending in the English regions. So much for solidarity. :rolleyes:

[Benny Brazil]

So Scotland's economy is pish but let's not try and take control and make it better, let's sponge off the English?

Depressing.

Would you trust the SNP to "make it better"?
They failed to explain their economic policy effectively during the referrendum (apart from saying oil revenues so many times) that I struggle to believe they would put together a cohesive plan to make Scotland prosper.

[JeMeSouviens]

Would you trust the SNP to "make it better"?
They failed to explain their economic policy effectively during the referrendum (apart from saying oil revenues so many times) that I struggle to believe they would put together a cohesive plan to make Scotland prosper.

Whatever the short term makeup of any particular party, I don't see why Scotland can't produce people capable of running a country but everywhere else can. The most successful countries, as in the ones with the happiest, best looked after populations are small western democracies. Why couldn't Scotland become another one?

[Beefster]

Whatever the short term makeup of any particular party, I don't see why Scotland can't produce people capable of running a country but everywhere else can. The most successful countries, as in the ones with the happiest, best looked after populations are small western democracies. Why couldn't Scotland become another one?

Who has said that Scotland cannot produce people capable of running a country?

[JeMeSouviens]

Who has said that Scotland cannot produce people capable of running a country?

Who has said that anyone said Scotland cannot produce people capable of running a country?

[Benny Brazil]

Whatever the short term makeup of any particular party, I don't see why Scotland can't produce people capable of running a country but everywhere else can. The most successful countries, as in the ones with the happiest, best looked after populations are small western democracies. Why couldn't Scotland become another one?

Nothing and no-one at present in Scottish politics is capable of making this happen in my view.
And certainly not whilst the dominant political party is hell bent on independance at any cost.

[ronaldo7]

It seems some folk want to live in a Scotland who's neck is under foot.:rolleyes:

We all know the difficulties that the Oil Industry is in and I'm still waiting on the £200Billion bonanza since being outvoted in the ref, as promised by the Loyal Unionists.

I'd just like to point out that the Scottish Gov have a no point had control over the Oil and Gas Industry, maybe if they did, it wouldn't have been squandered so badly.

It's great that we've increased onshore tax revenue by £6Billion since 2010, but when tax revenues from Oil are included, revenues are broadly in line with this greater economy some shout about.

Since Devolution Scotland has contributed an average £700 per person per year more in tax than the UK as a whole.

Scotland's economy remains strong, with up to 3 years continuous growth up to the third quarter of 2015

Our employment rate, now at an all time high, is higher than the UK as a whole.

Of the 12 nations/regions of the UK, Scotland's output per head, even without north sea revenues, is the third highest.

Scotland's international exports increased 36% from 2007-2014 from £20.3Billion up to £25.7 Billion

Since 2007 Scotland's growth in productivity at 4.4% has outstripped the UK's at 0.2%

We are investing more in public services than our counterparts south of the border by £93 more per head in health, and £133 more on education.

Gers is a snapshot in time, but given that even after SMITH is delivered, 71% of tax raised in Scotland will be controlled in Westminster. Our ability to grow our population and our tax base is limited by the UK government.

Imagine what we could achieve if we had all of the power to design policies that worked for Scotland and it's people.

While all this has been going on, the Tories in Westminster have reduced the ESA for disabled people by over £30 per week, ably supported by Labstain.

I'll leave this here, as it incorporates some of the figures above. Thanks Greens.:aok:

http://wp.me/p5QE4Z-k9

[JeMeSouviens]

Nothing and no-one at present in Scottish politics is capable of making this happen in my view.
And certainly not whilst the dominant political party is hell bent on independance at any cost.

Jeezo, you sound even more depressed than me!

[hibs0666]

So Scotland's economy is pish but let's not try and take control and make it better, let's sponge off the English?

Depressing.

You're not blaming chronic economic performance in Scotland on Westminster surely?

[AndyM_1875]

Ok, so independence starting now would've been extremely tough. But that ship sailed.

Looking forward, we can't sustain current levels of public spending on our own revenue base. So is the answer really that we just want to leech off England*?


* and thanks to Barnett with the direct consequence of lower public spending in the English regions. So much for solidarity. :rolleyes:

Yup, that ship is gone and all the axe-grinding on Twitter about a mythical indyref2 won't change that.
I don't think we leech of England, some years we have put in more than we got out, and others we haven't. We are also 1/3 of the land mass with a sparser population so that must also be taken into account.
For me, many of the problems faced by UK & Scotland are very similar. A sluggish economy supported by service industries coming out of the longest period of economic depression in my lifetime.

Major issues need to be faced though.
The tax take by HMRC has to go up, we simply do not bring in enough receipts.
The biggest gap coming from corporate tax avoidance (entirely legal) through use of a series of loopholes that tax lawyers can drive a truck though.

Public projects need far tighter controls on them. There is often a naivety in the way public projects are run with not enough having proper failure clauses built in. For every Queensferry Crossing success, there is a CAP Farm payment disaster with £200m of public money pished fruitlessly away.

I really don't think we will find our answers listening to politicians however.

[McD]

It seems some folk want to live in a Scotland who's neck is under foot.:rolleyes:

We all know the difficulties that the Oil Industry is in and I'm still waiting on the £200Billion bonanza since being outvoted in the ref, as promised by the Loyal Unionists.

I'd just like to point out that the Scottish Gov have a no point had control over the Oil and Gas Industry, maybe if they did, it wouldn't have been squandered so badly.

It's great that we've increased onshore tax revenue by £6Billion since 2010, but when tax revenues from Oil are included, revenues are broadly in line with this greater economy some shout about.

Since Devolution Scotland has contributed an average £700 per person per year more in tax than the UK as a whole.

Scotland's economy remains strong, with up to 3 years continuous growth up to the third quarter of 2015

Our employment rate, now at an all time high, is higher than the UK as a whole.

Of the 12 nations/regions of the UK, Scotland's output per head, even without north sea revenues, is the third highest.

Scotland's international exports increased 36% from 2007-2014 from £20.3Billion up to £25.7 Billion

Since 2007 Scotland's growth in productivity at 4.4% has outstripped the UK's at 0.2%

We are investing more in public services than our counterparts south of the border by £93 more per head in health, and £133 more on education.

Gers is a snapshot in time, but given that even after SMITH is delivered, 71% of tax raised in Scotland will be controlled in Westminster. Our ability to grow our population and our tax base is limited by the UK government.

Imagine what we could achieve if we had all of the power to design policies that worked for Scotland and it's people.

While all this has been going on, the Tories in Westminster have reduced the ESA for disabled people by over £30 per week, ably supported by Labstain.

I'll leave this here, as it incorporates some of the figures above. Thanks Greens.:aok:

http://wp.me/p5QE4Z-k9


Not wishing to be argumentative, and not claiming to be an expert (or even a novice) by any means, but the statistic I've highlighted doesn't add up - do you mean 26% instead of the 36%?

[allmodcons]

Just as well we're part of a much larger economy.

GERS 2014-15 report (http://www.gov.scot/Publications/2016/03/3692)

An alternative view for those of you who appear to take satisfaction in Scotland's poor position during 2014/15 WITHIN the Union.

http://wingsoverscotland.com/gazing-into-the-black-hole/

and just in case anyone moans about it, I'll post a link to WoS whenever I like (would appear to be frowned upon by some who post here)! IMO the website acts as a good source of information for those of us who have little or no faith in MSM. If I knew it all I wouldn't have to read or reference anything but, I'm afraid, I'm not that clever.

On a final note, this is set of figures for 1 year, nobody in their right mind would use a single years figures as a case for, or against, an Independent Scotland. Check out the figures over 20 - 25 years and have a look at how Scotland compares with all of the other 'regions' of the UK! My guess is we'd be 2nd outside of London and the South East.

[weecounty hibby]

Would you trust the SNP to "make it better"?
They failed to explain their economic policy effectively during the referrendum (apart from saying oil revenues so many times) that I struggle to believe they would put together a cohesive plan to make Scotland prosper.
I would trust Scottish people, with Scotland's interest at the forefront of what they do in an independent Scotland to make it better. In an independent Scotland perhaps even Labour, Tories and Lib Dems would put Scotland's interests first rather than seeing Scotland as a region

[Moulin Yarns]

Maybe if everyone paid the tax that is due....

11m-tax-avoidance (https://www.commonspace.scot/articles/3633/brian-souter-s-stagecoach-firm-found-guilty-of-11m-tax-avoidance)

:wink:

[marinello59]

I would trust Scottish people, with Scotland's interest at the forefront of what they do in an independent Scotland to make it better. In an independent Scotland perhaps even Labour, Tories and Lib Dems would put Scotland's interests first rather than seeing Scotland as a region

You can have Scotlands interests at the forefront of what you do without believing in Independence. 55% of Scots believed that to be true.

[hibs0666]

An alternative view for those of you who appear to take satisfaction in Scotland's poor position during 2014/15 WITHIN the Union.

http://wingsoverscotland.com/gazing-into-the-black-hole/

and just in case anyone moans about it, I'll post a link to WoS whenever I like (would appear to be frowned upon by some who post here)! IMO the website acts as a good source of information for those of us who have little or no faith in MSM. If I knew it all I wouldn't have to read or reference anything but, I'm afraid, I'm not that clever.

On a final note, this is set of figures for 1 year, nobody in their right mind would use a single years figures as a case for, or against, an Independent Scotland. Check out the figures over 20 - 25 years and have a look at how Scotland compares with all of the other 'regions' of the UK! My guess is we'd be 2nd outside of London and the South East.

That article is pretty much impenetrable.

[AndyM_1875]

That article is pretty much impenetrable.

There is little point in engaging with Wings over Bath as any critique of his agenda is greeted with abuse and clichés.

[Moulin Yarns]

There is little point in engaging with Wings over Bath as any critique of his agenda is greeted with abuse and clichés.

Except it isn't his words, they are lifted straight from this


https://thecommongreen.wordpress.com/2016/03/09/we-need-to-talk-about-gers-2014-15-edition/

[Just Alf]

Except it isn't his words, they are lifted straight from this


https://thecommongreen.wordpress.com/2016/03/09/we-need-to-talk-about-gers-2014-15-edition/
That's sort of become an issue I think.. the Wings guy does seem to be a space cadet so many just disregard anything published on the site even if it's linked to credible sources/data.

Re trusting SNP to run the country... if we were ever independent I'd probably vote for them the 1st term (in reality its really only the independence ticket thats got me reeled in) I'm not sure I'd continue in subsequent elections, many folk I've talked too seem of a similar view, not sure how widespread that view is mind!

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

[hibs0666]

There is little point in engaging with Wings over Bath as any critique of his agenda is greeted with abuse and clichés.

The guy that wrote the article needs some training in basic structure. He needs a couple of paragraphs up ront that summarise the situation, the complications and the associated so what. Everything else is just impenetrable detail and certainly fails that 'could my mum understand this?' test.

[Moulin Yarns]

The guy that wrote the article needs some training in basic structure. He needs a couple of paragraphs up ront that summarise the situation, the complications and the associated so what. Everything else is just impenetrable detail and certainly fails that 'could my mum understand this?' test.

I'm no accountant but I followed it fairly well. It certainly explains things better than the Record, for example.

[allmodcons]

The guy that wrote the article needs some training in basic structure. He needs a couple of paragraphs up ront that summarise the situation, the complications and the associated so what. Everything else is just impenetrable detail and certainly fails that 'could my mum understand this?' test.

What you mean is, it doesn't sit well with your agenda.

It's been posted on an openly pro Independence website, so you choose to ignore it as "impenetrable detail".


"When you wake up to the fact that your paper is Tory, just remember, there are two sides to every story".

[McSwanky]

The guy that wrote the article needs some training in basic structure. He needs a couple of paragraphs up ront that summarise the situation, the complications and the associated so what. Everything else is just impenetrable detail and certainly fails that 'could my mum understand this?' test.

I thought it was a pretty good article, maybe doesn't reach the heady heights of your (or your Mum's, although I'm really not sure what she's got to do with this) literary requirements, but it at least tries to break things down into facts, which is a hell of a lot better than your opening one-liner!

(In my opinion, of course.)

[JeMeSouviens]

That's sort of become an issue I think.. the Wings guy does seem to be a space cadet so many just disregard anything published on the site even if it's linked to credible sources/data.


His fact checking and sourcing etc is usually fine. The problem is he occasionally gives vent to his own opinions on subjects such as Hillsborough that he clearly knows **** all about and does so in such an offensive manner that it gives a free pass to those who just want to dismiss anything from the pro-independence side as "vile cybernats". Funnily enough "vile cyberyoons" like Ian Smart are just ignored. :rolleyes:



Re trusting SNP to run the country... if we were ever independent I'd probably vote for them the 1st term (in reality its really only the independence ticket thats got me reeled in) I'm not sure I'd continue in subsequent elections, many folk I've talked too seem of a similar view, not sure how widespread that view is mind!

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

Pretty sure they would split or at least there'd be an offshoot of the more pro-business wing. I hope that Scottish politics will realign once the national question is settled. The Irish model where parties with much the same policy are still divided by objections to a 100 year old treaty seems a bit silly.

[hibs0666]

What you mean is, it doesn't sit well with your agenda.

It's been posted on an openly pro Independence website, so you choose to ignore it as "impenetrable detail".


"When you wake up to the fact that your paper is Tory, just remember, there are two sides to every story".

Nope I mean what I say, but thanks for trying to get inside my head anyway. :wink:

The guy is down there in the weeds with the detail, and needs to explain his 'so what?' for the likes of me and my mum, and preferably not at the end of his impenetrable article.

[hibs0666]

His fact checking and sourcing etc is usually fine. The problem is he occasionally gives vent to his own opinions on subjects such as Hillsborough that he clearly knows **** all about and does so in such an offensive manner that it gives a free pass to those who just want to dismiss anything from the pro-independence side as "vile cybernats". Funnily enough "vile cyberyoons" like Ian Smart are just ignored. :rolleyes:



Pretty sure they would split or at least there'd be an offshoot of the more pro-business wing. I hope that Scottish politics will realign once the national question is settled. The Irish model where parties with much the same policy are still divided by objections to a 100 year old treaty seems a bit silly.

The national question is settled I thought? There is a new, agreed, settlement with London as negotiated by the SNP recently, and I'm sure even they would rather expend their efforts on managing Scotland than constitutional settlement issues.

[Moulin Yarns]

Nope I mean what I say, but thanks for trying to get inside my head anyway. :wink:

The guy is down there in the weeds with the detail, and needs to explain his 'so what?' for the likes of me and my mum, and preferably not at the end of his impenetrable article.

I don't think it is Dr Dalzell's fault you can't understand simple economics. Just like it wouldn't be his fault if he didn't understand your essay on Lazer Physics. :wink:

[hibs0666]

I don't think it is Dr Dalzell's fault you can't understand simple economics. Just like it wouldn't be his fault if he didn't understand your essay on Lazer Physics. :wink:

Of course it is his fault. Seeing as you find out simple, what are the three takeaways that me and my mum should be aware of from that article?

[JeMeSouviens]

The national question is settled I thought? There is a new, agreed, settlement with London as negotiated by the SNP recently, and I'm sure even they would rather expend their efforts on managing Scotland than constitutional settlement issues.

Temporary arrangement. :wink: Did you think things were settled following the devo-ref 97? Might take a few more slips but we will get to the bottom of the slope sooner or later.

[JeMeSouviens]

Of course it is his fault. Seeing as you find out simple, what are the three takeaways that me and my mum should be aware of from that article?

1. GERS is based on a lot of guesswork, much of which is possibly detrimental to a Yes case.
2. Even after Smith, most significant economic levers will still be controlled in London.
3. Even with our toytown parliament, 40% of "our" spending is done by London, much of it on things we don't need like a fading former "Great Power"'s military.

[hibs0666]

1. GERS is based on a lot of guesswork, much of which is possibly detrimental to a Yes case.
2. Even after Smith, most significant economic levers will still be controlled in London.
3. Even with our toytown parliament, 40% of "our" spending is done by London, much of it on things we don't need like a fading former "Great Power"'s military.

Cheers for that. What I'm seeing is that the guy has pointed out three key complications, but the 'so what?' seems to be missing.


what is the magnitude of error introduced by the guesswork? £10M? £100M? £1bm? £10bn?
what are these levers, and how by how much would these levers reduce the deficit?
how much of that that 40% of spend would not be required in a separate Scotland?

[Beefster]

Who has said that anyone said Scotland cannot produce people capable of running a country?

Entirely possible that it was a straw man, I suppose.


...I don't see why Scotland can't produce people capable of running a country but everywhere else can.

[JeMeSouviens]

Entirely possible that it was a straw man, I suppose.

I could explain but then you'd have to read it so why not just file under "vile cybernat" and everyone's happy. :wink:

[Beefster]

I could explain but then you'd have to read it so why not just file under "vile cybernat" and everyone's happy. :wink:

I don't think you're vile, JMS!

[JeMeSouviens]

I don't think you're vile, JMS!

Ok, change ...


Whatever the short term makeup of any particular party, I don't see why Scotland can't produce people capable of running a country but everywhere else can. The most successful countries, as in the ones with the happiest, best looked after populations are small western democracies. Why couldn't Scotland become another one?

to ...


Whatever the short term makeup of any particular party, since it is self-evident that Scotland, like everywhere else, can produce people capable of running a country and that the most successful countries, as in the ones with the happiest, best looked after populations are small western democracies. Why shouldn't Scotland become another one?

Clearer?

[ronaldo7]

Not wishing to be argumentative, and not claiming to be an expert (or even a novice) by any means, but the statistic I've highlighted doesn't add up - do you mean 26% instead of the 36%?

:agree: Typo :aok:

[steakbake]

Three thoughts.

First, the triumphalism of some people in parading a balance sheet showing the country in a deficit (or "apocalyptic black hole"). It's odd. It's like the same people that Brian Taylor spoke about at the Labour conference a few years ago, who were punching the air in delight that RBS was in trouble, because it would reflect on arguments for an independent country.

Second, if running a £15bn deficit is supposed to strengthen an argument for the safety of the Union, what is it again about a £15bn deficit that's a good thing? Or indicates good financial stewardship?

Third, 7.5% deficit to GDP is above the 3% permitted in the Eurozone. The Euro has valid critics. We're told regularly by our state broadcaster of the troubled Eurozone, the sluggish economies. But what do they know about running an economy in which France, Germany and Italy where all have half the deficit of the UK, that we don't?

It's kind of like a husband waving a dodgy mortgage statement in front of his wife, cheering about how much more debt she'd be in if it wasn't for him. All the while forgetting that the size of the house, the material goods, the luxuries, membership clubs and added extras they pay for are pretty much influenced more by his choice to keep up a pretense of grandeur in front of the neighbour he likes to compare himself with. She's possibly thinking about her life choices and whether this really is the marriage she wants to be in. She's also furious that he regularly doesn't even invoice the people he does work for in full - or lets them off with a small or no payment.

[ronaldo7]

I liked this one.:wink:

16258

[Moulin Yarns]

More positives than negatives of the GERS figures

https://www.commonspace.scot/articles/3651/robin-mcalpine-embrace-gers-it-could-help-us-get-independence

[marinello59]

More positives than negatives of the GERS figures

https://www.commonspace.scot/articles/3651/robin-mcalpine-embrace-gers-it-could-help-us-get-independence

I found myself agreeing with a lot of that.

[ronaldo7]

More positives than negatives of the GERS figures

https://www.commonspace.scot/articles/3651/robin-mcalpine-embrace-gers-it-could-help-us-get-independence

:kdarts::aok:

[Moulin Yarns]

I found myself agreeing with a lot of that.


:kdarts::aok:

Am I allowed to say Andy is standing as a candidate at the Scottish Parliamentary Election for the Scottish Green Party? :wink:

[JeMeSouviens]

Am I allowed to say Andy is standing as a candidate at the Scottish Parliamentary Election for the Scottish Green Party? :wink:

You could but the article was written by Robin McAlpine. :greengrin

[Greenworld]

Oh come on...these figures are dire. The SNP has used Tory austerity to take the blame for everything yet this year we would have have a near 10% budget deficit...what effect would that have on public spending?

As was predicted basing a nations spending on one key revenue source (and like it or not we don't have 30 years worth of a sovereign wealth fund to fall back on) was a highly dangerous route to take. These figures prove that fact and show just what a gamble the SNP were proposing

If the independence ref had went the other way Scotland could have been days away from being independent and already running a deficit bigger than any meaningful economy in the world!

https://www.gfmag.com/global-data/economic-data/public-deficit-percentage-gdp
What do you seriously think it would just happen next day next year.
It would take years to put everything in place so that point is scare mongering

Sent from my SM-G903F using Tapatalk

[Moulin Yarns]

You could but the article was written by Robin McAlpine. :greengrin

OOPs, so it was. :rolleyes:

[AndyM_1875]

OOPs, so it was. :rolleyes:

To be fair, the Greens are the one pro-Independence party I have a huge amount of time for.
Principled, non-hysterical and decent.

And I would heartily recommend the writings of Andy Wightman to all. http://www.andywightman.com/
His book "The poor had no lawyers" is essential reading.

[RyeSloan]

What do you seriously think it would just happen next day next year. It would take years to put everything in place so that point is scare mongering Sent from my SM-G903F using Tapatalk

Of course not but if you can point me to any serious economic policies that the SNP propose that would significantly change these figures then feel free. I'm completely open to alternative approaches but so far this thread has been one of denial. It seems the figures can be either ignored, taken as evidence that the Scottish economy is actually really strong (despite the GERS figures and Westminster it would appear), that the Scottish economy is not reliant on oil revenue, that Westminster is to blame for anything negative and actually these figures are positive and prove we need independence.

Hardly a single poster has acknowledged that clearly Independent or not Scotland would appear to be running a significant deficit, a deficit that would be extremely difficult to close no matter what. Even today we have Sturgeon shrugging her shoulders saying that who cares everyone runs a deficit, completely ignoring the fact that if the 10% is anywhere near accurate it would sink and independent Scotland very fast indeed.

The link to the Green boys view at least has some ideas and he has the honesty to admit that an independent Scotland would still face significant budget issues. Although that said you won't get me agreeing that nationalisation, more business tax and more employment regulation is going to be the way forward but at least he has the baws to put forward his ideas...the SNP's mantra of give us more powers and it will all be fine (honest Guv just trust us) is wearing very thin.

[southfieldhibby]

Who has said that Scotland cannot produce people capable of running a country?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBH55ZeZU4w

[Geo_1875]

Of course not but if you can point me to any serious economic policies that the SNP propose that would significantly change these figures then feel free. I'm completely open to alternative approaches but so far this thread has been one of denial. It seems the figures can be either ignored, taken as evidence that the Scottish economy is actually really strong (despite the GERS figures and Westminster it would appear), that the Scottish economy is not reliant on oil revenue, that Westminster is to blame for anything negative and actually these figures are positive and prove we need independence.

Hardly a single poster has acknowledged that clearly Independent or not Scotland would appear to be running a significant deficit, a deficit that would be extremely difficult to close no matter what. Even today we have Sturgeon shrugging her shoulders saying that who cares everyone runs a deficit, completely ignoring the fact that if the 10% is anywhere near accurate it would sink and independent Scotland very fast indeed.

The link to the Green boys view at least has some ideas and he has the honesty to admit that an independent Scotland would still face significant budget issues. Although that said you won't get me agreeing that nationalisation, more business tax and more employment regulation is going to be the way forward but at least he has the baws to put forward his ideas...the SNP's mantra of give us more powers and it will all be fine (honest Guv just trust us) is wearing very thin.

The UK economy is ****ed. The Scottish economy is ****ed. Lets all keep doing what we've been doing and stay ****ed. Is that your manifesto?

[RyeSloan]

The UK economy is ****ed. The Scottish economy is ****ed. Lets all keep doing what we've been doing and stay ****ed. Is that your manifesto?

Ha ha aye I'm probably the last person you could aim that jibe at...I'm quite clear that the central bank manipulation of our economies is doomed to fail, that the solution to the credit bubble can never be more and more debt and that Governments have no idea how to grow economies and that Japan is the clear example of how fiscal stimulus doesn't work. I'm all for smaller government, less central planning and more power to true capitalism (not to be confused with the totally corrupted version we have now). Adam Smith ken't what was going on 250 years ago, we've yet to learn the lessons he did back then.

But less about me...just what economic miracle would the SNP be proposing in the brave new world of Indy...I see lots of rhetoric about having our own powers but little detail on just how they would use them or how any of what little plans they have would make any real difference when we would be attached to the BoE and the £ and within the EU. It's all noise and bluster, which of course we can say about most of our politicos be that Sturgeon or Gideon.

[Moulin Yarns]

Ha ha aye I'm probably the last person you could aim that jibe at...I'm quite clear that the central bank manipulation of our economies is doomed to fail, that the solution to the credit bubble can never be more and more debt and that Governments have no idea how to grow economies and that Japan is the clear example of how fiscal stimulus doesn't work. I'm all for smaller government, less central planning and more power to true capitalism (not to be confused with the totally corrupted version we have now). Adam Smith ken't what was going on 250 years ago, we've yet to learn the lessons he did back then.

But less about me...just what economic miracle would the SNP be proposing in the brave new world of Indy...I see lots of rhetoric about having our own powers but little detail on just how they would use them or how any of what little plans they have would make any real difference when we would be attached to the BoE and the £ and within the EU. It's all noise and bluster, which of course we can say about most of our politicos be that Sturgeon or Gideon.

You are making the assumption that everybody seems to do, that the SNP will remain in power post Indy. I give it one term, two max, before the SNP implode when they can't agree about things. The only thing binding them is Indy, once that is achieved they will fracture into several factions. IMHO of course.

[Geo_1875]

Ha ha aye I'm probably the last person you could aim that jibe at...I'm quite clear that the central bank manipulation of our economies is doomed to fail, that the solution to the credit bubble can never be more and more debt and that Governments have no idea how to grow economies and that Japan is the clear example of how fiscal stimulus doesn't work. I'm all for smaller government, less central planning and more power to true capitalism (not to be confused with the totally corrupted version we have now). Adam Smith ken't what was going on 250 years ago, we've yet to learn the lessons he did back then.

But less about me...just what economic miracle would the SNP be proposing in the brave new world of Indy...I see lots of rhetoric about having our own powers but little detail on just how they would use them or how any of what little plans they have would make any real difference when we would be attached to the BoE and the £ and within the EU. It's all noise and bluster, which of course we can say about most of our politicos be that Sturgeon or Gideon.

I do agree with what you're saying and I've no strong feelings on the independence debate. BUT we need to be doing things differently whether it's UK or Scotland we shouldn't be governed by people simply because they are wealthy. Gone are the days of noblesse oblige, if they ever truly existed.

[Geo_1875]

You are making the assumption that everybody seems to do, that the SNP will remain in power post Indy. I give it one term, two max, before the SNP implode when they can't agree about things. The only thing binding them is Indy, once that is achieved they will fracture into several factions. IMHO of course.

I don't see it being an implosion, more a realignment of members into their natural political leanings post-independence. They've said as much themselves.

[RyeSloan]

You are making the assumption that everybody seems to do, that the SNP will remain in power post Indy. I give it one term, two max, before the SNP implode when they can't agree about things. The only thing binding them is Indy, once that is achieved they will fracture into several factions. IMHO of course.

No not really...I see an post Indy political make up quite different to now for the reasons you state but we have to look at the present and ask the questions of the main party pushing for access to all of these levers. Honesty as I've said I think governments ability to grow economies by pulling these levers are extremely overstated and more often than not they cause more harm than good but since the SNP are quite adamant they need them I'm rather curious as to how they propose to use them. It's not like they are saying that once Indy is achieved they are going to stand aside.

[lord bunberry]

Does the £15 billion include our share of the military budget and the foreign aid budget?

[JeMeSouviens]

Does the £15 billion include our share of the military budget and the foreign aid budget?

Yes, it apportions (guesses) figures for Uk-wide spending attributable to Scotland. Previous GERS have included things like the London Olympics because that was a benefit to the whole UK, allegedly.

On the military point. The UK spends £56 Bn on its miltary, so our share would be approx £4.5 Bn. By comparison, Ireland with a similar geography spends about £700M. But then again, it's not pretending to "rule the waves" with a bunch of wmds. :wink:

[lord bunberry]

Yes, it apportions (guesses) figures for Uk-wide spending attributable to Scotland. Previous GERS have included things like the London Olympics because that was a benefit to the whole UK, allegedly.

On the military point. The UK spends £56 Bn on its miltary, so our share would be approx £4.5 Bn. By comparison, Ireland with a similar geography spends about £700M. But then again, it's not pretending to "rule the waves" with a bunch of wmds. :wink:
So the £15 billion figure is completely irrelevant to the independence debate then. To suggest that an independent Scotland would currently be running a £15 billion deficit is completely disingenuous IMO and sums up the op's attitude to things since the referendum. I've mostly avoided these debates recently as they've turned into petty point scoring exercises.

[Jack]

Are the people celebrating Scotlands apocalyptic £15bn black hole the same people who a few years ago that were incandescent with rage that the Scottish Government had underspent it's share of the Scottish budget by a couple of million pounds that barely registered on the % scale?

It seems to be the same ones in political and media circles. I just wondered if folk thought it was the same here?

[RyeSloan]

Are the people celebrating Scotlands apocalyptic £15bn black hole the same people who a few years ago that were incandescent with rage that the Scottish Government had underspent it's share of the Scottish budget by a couple of million pounds that barely registered on the % scale? It seems to be the same ones in political and media circles. I just wondered if folk thought it was the same here?

Not sure anyone is celebrating a potential £15bn black hole merely asking what the consequences of that would be if it was carried into an Independent Scotland and what the figure does to the Independence economic case.

As ever though the level of debate in the media and by the politicians has been more one of bluster and sound bites than one of serious analysis.

[hibs0666]

THE BOGUS figures that informed the SNP’s pre-indyref White Paper have been exposed, writes Brian Wilson

As the Ides of March approach, it might all have been so different. The bunting would be out in Edinburgh with Saltire manufacturers labouring round the clock to satisfy demand.

Instead of honing credentials as a shock-Jock in London, Alex Salmond would be preparing to welcome princes and potentates to his court. Amidst the monster helpings of bread and circuses, who would have noticed the boring old GERS figures?

Publication may even have been cancelled, lest intimation of a £15 billion black hole inhibit the mood of public rejoicing. Inconveniently, the facts would have remained the same – with the consequences flowing from them brutally inescapable once the hubris subsided.

The Edinburgh ruling class and their hangers-on would be undisturbed. “We only had to win once,” they would s******, while toasting their own cleverness. Out in the streets, dissidents who spoke of awful economic consequences would be abused with renewed patriotic fervour…

Fortunately, we can speculate harmlessly about what we might now be living through since grim reality was averted on 18 September, 2014. Instead, we are required to suffer the “minimal impacts” of Swinney’s cuts, the narrative of perpetual grievance and the threat of another referendum.

It is scarcely uplifting but compared to what might have been, it’s a stroll in the park. So let us raise a timely glass to a fate avoided, which would certainly not have been paid for by the architects of the great deception. There is an argument against re-fighting battles that have been won and lost. But this must be counted an exception. The run-up to the referendum and the fraudulent case set out in the White Paper is not just history. It is, more importantly, a lesson which should never be lost sight of in the future.

Like all fundamentalist beliefs, nationalism creates zealots who are prone to assuming that their end justifies the means. If the facts do not suit, create new ones. If history does not stand scrutiny, rewrite it. Above all, if the numbers do not stack up, brazen it out and make them up. This will never change.

There are plenty decent nationalists exempt from these charges. Their belief is based on a principle they place above others. If there are negative economic consequences, then so be it – they should be set against other benefits and opportunities. That is a standpoint which can be argued with, honourably and without rancour. It involves neither denial nor falsification.

But that was not the route chosen by Salmond, Sturgeon and Swinney. For them, the mission was to concoct an economic case they knew to be thoroughly dishonest but which they hoped would avoid exposure long enough for them to win. They did not give a toss for the ordinary people of Scotland who would now be paying the horrendous price which this week’s figures confirmed, with much worse still to come.

In BBC’s Question Time from Dundee – itself a pretty dismal reflection of the level Scottish politics has descended to – there was one exchange of significance. It came when Willie Rennie tried to quote back to Swinney the warnings he sounded in his briefing to Scottish Cabinet colleagues in 2013. This was a document the public was never meant to see and it proved to be the most revealing one. Swinney became agitated and tried to talk Rennie down with denials but it is critical to recall what Swinney said. Exactly as Rennie sought to point out, he warned colleagues oil price volatility could jeopardise an independent Scotland’s ability to pay pensions and benefits. For years, he wrote, benefits from the Barnett Formula (which were to be lost) had exceeded what additional revenues from oil would have brought in.

The leaking of this paper started the chain of events leading to the scandal of the White Paper. Recognising its seriousness, Salmond produced something grandly entitled “The First Oil and Gas Analytical Bulletin” conjuring up £26bn more from oil revenues than Swinney’s paper had assumed. In 2017-18 alone, according to Salmond’s “bulletin”, Scotland was to receive £11.8bn in oil revenues. This set the pattern for what followed – invent the figures required and then work backwards. In March 2014, I wrote here about a debate in Aberdeen with Fergus Ewing when he quoted a forward price of £110 a barrel as the basis of the SNP’s assumptions. This was a knowledgeable audience and he was ridiculed. “Your numbers are not taken seriously,” one oil man told him. “Your numbers are simply wrong.”

The significant point was that Ewing had nothing to say in response. Like the rest of them, he had been given this absurd number to quote because the whole economic case depended on it. Of course, subsequent reality has been even worse than most were then predicting, but it is absolutely untrue for anyone to claim Salmond and Sturgeon did not know (a) the figures they were using were bogus and (b) the implications for the Scottish people would be extremely serious. Swinney (and many others) had told them so in explicit terms.

It may well be that half the Scottish electorate is happy to have been systematically lied to on a matter of such fundamental importance to the Scottish economy and the well-being of every family in the country. But hope still remains in the fact that the other half is not. That is one reflection of how they have divided Scotland along utterly unproductive lines while still having the gall to talk about another referendum.

Sturgeon’s performance at First Minister’s Question Time this week had guilt written all over it, but not a word of contrition. Just turn up the volume, accuse those who tried to tell the truth of being anti-Scottish and bluster in the manner she learned at the feet of the master.

The lifting of scales from eyes is a protracted business. However, I expect some of those who would now be suffering austerity beyond current contemplation are now having second thoughts.

Meanwhile, those of us who tried to tell them and were denigrated so vigorously for our efforts have the satisfaction of confirmation, from the Scottish Government’s own figures, that we were absolutely, 100 per cent right.



Read more: http://www.scotsman.com/news/brian-wilson-thank-god-we-didn-t-believe-facts-1-4063624#ixzz42s1CiJtX
Follow us: @TheScotsman on Twitter | TheScotsmanNewspaper on Facebook

[Moulin Yarns]

We can all copy and paste other people. Here, have a read at these, and remember, Brian Wilson was paid to write his piece, unlike these quotes.


THE BOGUS figures that informed the SNP's pre-indyref White Paper have been exposed, writes Brian Wilson.
Some lies that need to be countered.
The white paper was compiled through 2013 and reflected predictions at the time. As we all know (though some have studiously ignored), the oil price predictions around that time were pretty bullish. The OBR's Economic and Fiscal Outlook 2012 contains this interesting paragraph "The futures market suggests that oil prices will remain higher throughout the forecast period than we assumed in November, but that they will fall back more quickly than expected previously to $95 per barrel in 2016."
But even later, that confidence continued amongst unionist economic institutions.
At the end of 2013, the Financial Times reminds us of the OBR's own caveats in relation to its predictions "The OBR has itself stressed that forecasting oil revenues is notoriously difficult given the complex interplay of production levels, energy prices and capital investment by companies."
Meanwhile OPEC was telling the world that it expected oil to sit around $110 till about 2020 and then climb to $160 by 2035 and the UK government itself, via its Department of Energy and Climate Change was predicting steady growth from $110 to $135 by 2030, albeit with wide error margins, though none dropping below $80 by 2025 and certainly nothing near the $30 we see today.
It is inconceivable that Unionists like Brian Wilson are unaware of this so why do they perpetuate the lie that the White Paper deliberately misled the Scottish people.

Read more: http://www.scotsman.com/news/brian-wilson-thank-god-we-didn-t-believe-facts-1-4063624#ixzz42sKgtUsO
Follow us: @TheScotsman on Twitter (http://ec.tynt.com/b/rw?id=cqFF9Cwg8r5ygEacwqm_6r&u=TheScotsman) | TheScotsmanNewspaper on Facebook (http://ec.tynt.com/b/rf?id=cqFF9Cwg8r5ygEacwqm_6r&u=TheScotsmanNewspaper)


The GERS figures themselves are an economic record of where Scotland stands today. Unionists like Brian, who can't hide their glee at Scotland's apparent misfortune, suggest that they prove that Scotland could never be independent but, of course, they do nothing of the kind.
GERS 2016 shows us that Scotland has been neglected under the union, exactly what supporters of independence have been saying for years. Although the "Scottish oil " figures show up in Scotland's "credits" columns on paper, that money has always been controlled and spent by Westminster. Where was the much-needed Scottish investment in infra-structure, jobs and services that our independent, oil-rich neighbour Norway has seen over the last 35 years? GERS 2016 proves that it didn't happen here!
And when Norway's oil income also fell this year and it needed, for the first time, to withdraw funds from its massive oil fund to save it from that "black hole" (black hole seems to be the Scottish expression for "deficit" except the Scottish one is 100 times more scary than everybody else's!) the funds were sitting waiting.
Norwegians will be saying "thank God we were independent and could save for that inevitable rainy day!"
Here in Scotland all we get from the unionists is "we squandered your oil revenues on setting-up and then bailing-out dodgy banks and nuclear vanity projects and in doing so we neglected your economy till it was worse than Greece's. Now the union has damaged Scotland so much that its now your only option!"
It is that mentality that Brian espouses and that has left Scotland at the mercy of Thatcher and Cameron since the late 70s. This failed politician's hatred of Salmond and Sturgeon is visceral and born of jealousy and resentment

Read more: http://www.scotsman.com/news/brian-wilson-thank-god-we-didn-t-believe-facts-1-4063624#ixzz42sKxrJVW
Follow us: @TheScotsman on Twitter (http://ec.tynt.com/b/rw?id=cqFF9Cwg8r5ygEacwqm_6r&u=TheScotsman) | TheScotsmanNewspaper on Facebook (http://ec.tynt.com/b/rf?id=cqFF9Cwg8r5ygEacwqm_6r&u=TheScotsmanNewspaper)

[JeMeSouviens]

THE BOGUS figures that informed the SNP’s pre-indyref White Paper have been exposed, writes Brian Wilson

(bitter rant snipped)




This'll be the Brian Wilson that wrote Celtc's official history and called it "A Century With Honour". :rolleyes: Nuff said?

[Northernhibee]

This'll be the Brian Wilson that wrote Celtc's official history and called it "A Century With Honour". :rolleyes: Nuff said?

Not really, why would him being a Celtic fan change anything?

[allmodcons]

This'll be the Brian Wilson that wrote Celtc's official history and called it "A Century With Honour". :rolleyes: Nuff said?


Not really, why would him being a Celtic fan change anything?

It's not the fact that he's a Celtic fan that's the problem, he's renowned for writing crap! The clue is in the title of the book!

[Northernhibee]

It's not the fact that he's a Celtic fan that's the problem, he's renowned for writing crap! The clue is in the title of the book!

Ladies and gentleman, nationalist debating for you.

[Moulin Yarns]

ladies and gentleman, nationalist debating for you.

wtf

[allmodcons]

Ladies and gentleman, nationalist debating for you.

Just for you NH because I think you're struggling with this.

Celtic Football Club = "A Century with Honour".

It was a tongue in cheek reference by JMS. Shame you missed it, but to have spelled out to you and then miss the point again!!!!

[JeMeSouviens]

Just for you NH because I think you're struggling with this.

Celtic Football Club = "A Century with Honour".

It was a tongue in cheek reference by JMS. Shame you missed it, but to have spelled out to you and then miss the point again!!!!

It was specially for 0666 who has a particular penchant for the "honourable" tic. :wink:

[hibs0666]

So the £15 billion figure is completely irrelevant to the independence debate then. To suggest that an independent Scotland would currently be running a £15 billion deficit is completely disingenuous IMO and sums up the op's attitude to things since the referendum. I've mostly avoided these debates recently as they've turned into petty point scoring exercises.

OK, let's assume no spending on defence or foreign aid. That will get the deficit down to only £10bn. All we'll need to do then is zero out health expenditure and that'll be the books balanced. I just watched Sturgeon's question time thing when this report was published - not very impressive at all.

[Berwickhibby]

http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20160316/d7001a7c7d372695d5747676de3d632a.jpg

Sums it up


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Just Alf]

http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20160316/d7001a7c7d372695d5747676de3d632a.jpg

Sums it up


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

could you post a link to the data?

[JeMeSouviens]

could you post a link to the data?

(I think) It's a very crude comparison of a straight Scottish per-capita share of the UK's 2014-15 deficit versus the notional Scottish 2014-15 deficit based on the GERS numbers.

I've no idea why "families" are particularly singled out as the beneficiaries? I suppose I should be grateful that it wasn't just "hard working" ones. :rolleyes:

[JeMeSouviens]

http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20160316/d7001a7c7d372695d5747676de3d632a.jpg

Sums it up


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

The irony factor of someone called Berwickhibby posting this is particulary high (assuming its Berwick, Northumberland). Given that NE England is one of the regions that's hardest hit by directly losing out on a fair share of public spending thanks to the bribe to keep Scotland in the union. On a short term purely public spending analysis, we might be Better Together, he's certainly not! :greengrin

[hibs0666]

The irony factor of someone called Berwickhibby posting this is particulary high (assuming its Berwick, Northumberland). Given that NE England is one of the regions that's hardest hit by directly losing out on a fair share of public spending thanks to the bribe to keep Scotland in the union. On a short term purely public spending analysis, we might be Better Together, he's certainly not! :greengrin

Why have a pop at the messenger? How was the McMillan by the way - would you go back?

[JeMeSouviens]

Why have a pop at the messenger?

Pop is a bit strong? Extra light gentle dig at most. Anyway, Scottish Unionists are at some point going to have to face up to being honest. If we're just a region of Britain, we shouldn't have any higher public spending than the other regions. The English will not wear something so evidently unfair for ever.


How was the McMillan by the way - would you go back?

Ideal, thanks. Good food, relaxed Hibby ambience, nice stroll through the park to Hampden. Would go again. :agree:

[Jones28]

That's sort of become an issue I think.. the Wings guy does seem to be a space cadet so many just disregard anything published on the site even if it's linked to credible sources/data.

Re trusting SNP to run the country... if we were ever independent I'd probably vote for them the 1st term (in reality its really only the independence ticket thats got me reeled in) I'm not sure I'd continue in subsequent elections, many folk I've talked too seem of a similar view, not sure how widespread that view is mind!

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

I'm with you mate, I'd vote green or something else.

Besides, if Scotland were to become independent in the future what would be the point of the SNP?

[bawheid]

I notice Kez is saying she wants Nicola Sturgeon's desk and Nicola Sturgeon's chair. She's also told Jezza to stay away, presumably in case he nips in and takes Nicola Sturgeon's heels.

Good luck Kez. Personally think she's going to struggle to convince anybody she should be put in charge of anything more than the Holyrood tuck shop.

[RyeSloan]

I notice Kez is saying she wants Nicola Sturgeon's desk and Nicola Sturgeon's chair. She's also told Jezza to stay away, presumably in case he nips in and takes Nicola Sturgeon's heels. Good luck Kez. Personally think she's going to struggle to convince anybody she should be put in charge of anything more than the Holyrood tuck shop.

You wouldn't even do that...she would just put all the prices up by 1% ;-)

[lucky]

Thought for the (Not Independence) Day

A reading from the Book of Indyref

And upon the dawn of September 18th the false prophet Salmond spake thusly to the Tribe of the Caledonians;

“People of Scotland

We stand in the Valley of the Shadow of Secession.

Now is the day and now is the hour of the Indyref.

Tread ye the path of Indy and all manner of good things will be yours

Yea Caledonia is all you have ever had – even though you have not had it.

Nor shall you have it now.

For it is written in our White Paper as in the Sky, in letters not of fire but of great and terrible implausibility;

We will ease the burdens on the righteous rich and their corporations will see little tax.

And nor shall the taxes on the incomes of highest increase,

Nor the taxes on the lower paid,

And the taxes paid for the Councils will diminish and fade like the services they pay for.

Neither shall anything that once belongeth to the public and was then stolen by the tribe of Thatcher be restored to the public.

And the buses of my servant Souter will remain with my servant Souter

And the interests of my benefactor Rupert will be protected also.

And yea, those pounds which we use now in the days of our bondage, the Sterling which I have long decreed a millstone around the necks of the Scots. Those shall be the same pounds which we use in the days of our freedom. For the idea of Scots pound is the stuff of low polling numbers and frightened horses.

Verily, No one can stop us using the pound, regardless of consequence to ourselves

For I have decreed, as flags beat facts; true independence lies with leaving someone else control of the money supply.

So banish ye all thoughts of contradiction and arithmetic. Embrace ye instead the positivity that argues that only a Yes vote can stop the privatisation of your NHS and the tribulations that would then be visited upon you.

And the people of Scotland, pondering the words of the false prophet Salmond, raised their heads and asketh of the Campaign of Yes who were never to be called nationalists:

“How can we have the services of Scandinavia with the taxes of America? How is the wealth of Scotland to be put in our hands when you say it is to be left in the hands of those who are currently wealthy?”

And the false prophet Salmond spoke again to the Caledonians;

“Hearken unto me O people of Scotland, listen to my words and those of my helpmate Nicola and our jester known as the Canavan.

Only vote Yes and the streets will be paved with the gold that is black and the land will flow with milk and MacHoney”

And the people of Scotland replied to the false prophet Salmond;

“The Lord may well work in strange and mysterious ways – but making this add up would be a stretch even for Him.

For you are talking keech”

Whereupon the face of the false prophet Salmond turned whiter than a whitened sepulchre newly washed with daz ultra. He gathered together his pensions and departed for a radio studio in London to his third job – as a shock jock.

The irony of which he perceiveth not .

And lo the tribe of the Caledonians did fall upon their ballot papers in great multitudes and the bulk of the people did place their mark against the box marked “No”.

---------

Thanks be to God.

[JeMeSouviens]

Thought for the (Not Independence) Day.

<snippety snip>



Well that was a rollicking barrel of laughs. Anyone got a tumbleweed smiley? :rolleyes:

[RyeSloan]

http://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/8218

[Moulin Yarns]

http://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/8218

Of course all these figures and projections have got worse after the referendum result was known, who is to say they wouldn't have been a lot better if the result had been different? :wink: #justsaying

[JeMeSouviens]

http://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/8218

Which takes us back full circle. So what's your solution?

1. Attempt to raise more revenue by growing the economy
2. Attempt to raise more revenue by raising taxation
3. Attempt to reduce spending
4. Some combination of the above
5. Sponge off the English and hope they don't notice

[Berwickhibby]

The irony factor of someone called Berwickhibby posting this is particulary high (assuming its Berwick, Northumberland). Given that NE England is one of the regions that's hardest hit by directly losing out on a fair share of public spending thanks to the bribe to keep Scotland in the union. On a short term purely public spending analysis, we might be Better Together, he's certainly not! :greengrin

Just seen this, I have not lived in Berwick for a few years.... Live in Fife, kept the user name as I was unable to change it. So another wild assumption where the facts are wrong ..... Or will you blame Westminster that Hibs.net don't have facility to change user name ;-)


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[McSwanky]

Just seen this, I have not lived in Berwick for a few years.... Live in Fife, kept the user name as I was unable to change it. So another wild assumption where the facts are wrong ..... Or will you blame Westminster that Hibs.net don't have facility to change user name ;-)


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

http://www.hibs.net/profile.php?do=editprofile

Just sayin... :wink:

[JeMeSouviens]

Just seen this, I have not lived in Berwick for a few years.... Live in Fife, kept the user name as I was unable to change it. So another wild assumption where the facts are wrong ..... Or will you blame Westminster that Hibs.net don't have facility to change user name ;-)


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

It does btw (and I did caveat the assumption so it was hardly wild).

And also btw I don't blame Westminster for acting in the interests of the 92% of the UK that aren't in Scotland rather than the 8% that are. What else would they do?

And another thing ... is it ok to rip off the good folk of Berwick just because you don't live there any more?

[RyeSloan]

Which takes us back full circle. So what's your solution? 1. Attempt to raise more revenue by growing the economy 2. Attempt to raise more revenue by raising taxation 3. Attempt to reduce spending 4. Some combination of the above 5. Sponge off the English and hope they don't notice

It's pretty clear that even if the economy did grow substantially more in an Indy Scotland versus the status quo (although quite how that would happen is of course unclear...see the recent report on the SNP's enterprise areas failure) that it would take a substantial amount of time for that to feed through in tax revenue. In the meantime that independent Scotland would have a very real and substantial deficit.

So your list is reasonably accurate in that it would need to be number 4 (number 5 doesn't count as we know they all love Barnett)...Yet where is the narrative from the SNP on how that would be done. Governments are pretty useless at 'growing economies', historically they do the wrong things for the wrong reasons. Add in that would have just divorced our main trading partner but still be tied to its monetary policies and you have a right cocktail for disaster.

I'm not saying it couldn't be done nor even that the risks might not be worth it but let's be honest about the very real risks that Indy would throw up and let's be honest that if the IFS figures are anywhere near accurate that they would mean substantial spending cuts.

The SNP have been busy campaigning on spending more on this and more on that yet very obviously fail to explain how all that spending could be afforded if their reason for existence came to pass.

Their response to the 3 reports today that all indicate substantial and growing deficits appears to be nothing more than putting their fingers in their ears and pretending they can't hear...not a very reassuring response to some searching questions.

[JeMeSouviens]

It's pretty clear that even if the economy did grow substantially more in an Indy Scotland versus the status quo (although quite how that would happen is of course unclear...see the recent report on the SNP's enterprise areas failure) that it would take a substantial amount of time for that to feed through in tax revenue. In the meantime that independent Scotland would have a very real and substantial deficit.

So your list is reasonably accurate in that it would need to be number 4 (number 5 doesn't count as we know they all love Barnett)...Yet where is the narrative from the SNP on how that would be done. Governments are pretty useless at 'growing economies', historically they do the wrong things for the wrong reasons. Add in that would have just divorced our main trading partner but still be tied to its monetary policies and you have a right cocktail for disaster.

I'm not saying it couldn't be done nor even that the risks might not be worth it but let's be honest about the very real risks that Indy would throw up and let's be honest that if the IFS figures are anywhere near accurate that they would mean substantial spending cuts.

The SNP have been busy campaigning on spending more on this and more on that yet very obviously fail to explain how all that spending could be afforded if their reason for existence came to pass.

Their response to the 3 reports today that all indicate substantial and growing deficits appears to be nothing more than putting their fingers in their ears and pretending they can't hear...not a very reassuring response to some searching questions.

So, I mostly agree with that but this isn't just a question for the SNP. I have yet to see Unionists even acknowledge there is a question, let alone ignore it. How do the parties of the Union propose to fill the gap between revenue and spending? Is their answer really just 5?

[RyeSloan]

So, I mostly agree with that but this isn't just a question for the SNP. I have yet to see Unionists even acknowledge there is a question, let alone ignore it. How do the parties of the Union propose to fill the gap between revenue and spending? Is their answer really just 5?

Largely it seems it is although to be fair to them they are not proposing separation so the question is surely most pertinent to the party that is no?

I think what I'm getting at is you can't seriously propose independence but at the same time completely ignore the potential economic realities that would bring. Especially so in a nation that has higher public spending and employment than the nations you want to separate from. Add in the SNP's consistent line on Tory austerity and it brings to look rather duplicitous.

[JeMeSouviens]

Largely it seems it is although to be fair to them they are not proposing separation so the question is surely most pertinent to the party that is no?

I think what I'm getting at is you can't seriously propose independence but at the same time completely ignore the potential economic realities that would bring. Especially so in a nation that has higher public spending and employment than the nations you want to separate from. Add in the SNP's consistent line on Tory austerity and it brings to look rather duplicitous.

So you are asking the SNP to go into every election with a manifesto based on a constitutional situation that, notwithstanding their desire, doesn't exist? They are currently seeking a mandate to run the toytown parliament, not a real one.

Shouldn't Scottish Unionism be doing a bit more to propose an alternative that doesn't just involve gleefully proclaiming how economically ****ed and beholden to others we are?

[ronaldo7]

I'm just glad that the SNP Government have saved the Scottish steel industry, it's a pity the feeble 50 couldn't do the same for Ravenscraig.:wink:

And did I mention that the SNP Scottish Government were the most trusted in the EU. :aok:

Bring it on.

[RyeSloan]

So you are asking the SNP to go into every election with a manifesto based on a constitutional situation that, notwithstanding their desire, doesn't exist? They are currently seeking a mandate to run the toytown parliament, not a real one. Shouldn't Scottish Unionism be doing a bit more to propose an alternative that doesn't just involve gleefully proclaiming how economically ****ed and beholden to others we are?

No I'm saying they need to be much clearer on the potential economic and other consequences of their principal reason for existence and stop pretending that their isn't a very real chance that some of them could be rather negative at least in the short to medium term.

I don't think that's an unreasonable think to ask for but then honesty and pragmatism is not something any politician ever has in great supply...however when you are talking about he future of 5 million people maybe the bar should be raised slightly higher than what we have come to accept.

[grunt]

http://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/8218Thanks, interesting read.
I thought this comment was telling.


So it’s perhaps an unfair criticism of the Scottish Government to say it got its forecasts of oil revenues wrong – so did the OBR, and any revenue forecast for something as volatile as oil will be ‘wrong’. The right response to this is to take this uncertainty into account when setting policy. Therefore more problematic is the fact that in its analysis of the potential path of oil revenues (http://www.gov.scot/Topics/Economy/Publications/oilandgas), the Scottish Government considers scenarios where the revenues come in higher than the OBR forecasts but does not consider scenarios where revenues come in less than the OBR forecasts. In other words scenarios are skewed to the “upside” – and this can prove problematic if, as has happened, revenues keep coming in under forecast.

[steakbake]

So you are asking the SNP to go into every election with a manifesto based on a constitutional situation that, notwithstanding their desire, doesn't exist? They are currently seeking a mandate to run the toytown parliament, not a real one.

Shouldn't Scottish Unionism be doing a bit more to propose an alternative that doesn't just involve gleefully proclaiming how economically ****ed and beholden to others we are?

Good shout. Equally, where is the incentive for those of a unionist persuasion to grow and shape the Scottish economy to a model where they couldn't proclaim that an independent state wouldn't be rooked?

Personally, I think like any or indeed most countries, we would be working with some kind of deficit. As long as it is manageable and serviceable, and evens out over the course of time, then small deficits are the experience of many well functioning countries.

[ronaldo7]

Thought I would leave this here. Gideon seems to be doing such a great job for all of us eh.

https://t.co/Aekf5yoEuC

[steakbake]

Thought I would leave this here. Gideon seems to be doing such a great job for all of us eh.

https://t.co/Aekf5yoEuC

It's like watching a wonga repayment calculator. Ironically, it's the financial security bit which spooked people in Sep 14.

[RyeSloan]

Thought I would leave this here. Gideon seems to be doing such a great job for all of us eh. https://t.co/Aekf5yoEuC

That's Tory austerity for ya!

And the consensus north of the border feels like we should be taxing and spending more, all in the name of 'investment', maybe the £1.6trn overspent so far hasn't been enough..

[lucky]

Austerity has failed in all countries not just in the UK. If only we had a Scottish Government that was willing to put up taxes for the rich rather than do nothing....... We can only dream a government standing up for its people instead of blaming others.....

[ronaldo7]

Austerity has failed in all countries not just in the UK. If only we had a Scottish Government that was willing to put up taxes for the rich rather than do nothing....... We can only dream a government standing up for its people instead of blaming others.....

Are we not to ask any questions of the UK gov theses days, without someone claiming the blame game?

Maybe we should just abstain and get back into our box eh.

If only we had a Government who were challenged by the fishul opposition instead of them measuring up for the Ermine clad robes.

I thought you'd be at the barricades at the Weegie shipyards where it's rumoured the Tories have stitched them up again.

16435

http://www.thenational.scot/news/union-fury-amid-leaked-news-of-clyde-shipyard-jobs-threat.16690

[lucky]

Who's defending Westminister but the reality is the SNP have chosen not to tackle austerity head on. If the Tories turn their back on the shipyards the fault lies at the door of the Tories. But Nicola can only blame Labour and the people of Scotland for voting no. If we had gone for Yes then the British ships would be 100% not happening.

[steakbake]

Are we not to ask any questions of the UK gov theses days, without someone claiming the blame game?

Maybe we should just abstain and get back into our box eh.

If only we had a Government who were challenged by the fishul opposition instead of them measuring up for the Ermine clad robes.

I thought you'd be at the barricades at the Weegie shipyards where it's rumoured the Tories have stitched them up again.

16435

http://www.thenational.scot/news/union-fury-amid-leaked-news-of-clyde-shipyard-jobs-threat.16690

Jeez, what a stitch up. We really are the perfect neighbours. Complete mugs. It's so predictable though.

[ronaldo7]

Who's defending Westminister but the reality is the SNP have chosen not to tackle austerity head on. If the Tories turn their back on the shipyards the fault lies at the door of the Tories. But Nicola can only blame Labour and the people of Scotland for voting no. If we had gone for Yes then the British ships would be 100% not happening.

I took you comment about blaming others to mean the SNP blaming Westminster. If that's not correct then I'm sure you'll tell me.:wink:

I love how you try and "Blame" the SNP on not tackling austerity head on when your lot decided to abstain from the cuts. #werememberyiken

I do wonder if we'd voted yes, if we'd have had some sort of Navy in Faslane instead of those WMD that Jackie Baillie likes so much. I wonder when Kez will get round to taking a position on defence. She's supposed to lead from the front isn't she.

Nicola didn't just blame Labour, she said you were both (Red and Blue Tories) to blame. I wonder when you'll come off the fence with regards to Baillie...Not holding my breath though.:wink:

[lucky]

I took you comment about blaming others to mean the SNP blaming Westminster. If that's not correct then I'm sure you'll tell me.:wink:

I love how you try and "Blame" the SNP on not tackling austerity head on when your lot decided to abstain from the cuts. #werememberyiken

I do wonder if we'd voted yes, if we'd have had some sort of Navy in Faslane instead of those WMD that Jackie Baillie likes so much. I wonder when Kez will get round to taking a position on defence. She's supposed to lead from the front isn't she.

Nicola didn't just blame Labour, she said you were both (Red and Blue Tories) to blame. I wonder when you'll come off the fence with regards to Baillie...Not holding my breath though.:wink:

But the Tartan Tories have had a chance to stand up against austerity here in Scotland but failed. The SNP chose not to increase tax for the richest but cut council budgets effecting the poorest more. The SNP have been exposed as the Tartan Tories we always knew you were
#werememberyiken

[ronaldo7]

But the Tartan Tories have had a chance to stand up against austerity here in Scotland but failed. The SNP chose not to increase tax for the richest but cut council budgets effecting the poorest more. The SNP have been exposed as the Tartan Tories we always knew you were
#werememberyiken

We'll have to agree to disagree bud.:aok:

I wonder what we're going to do with the extra £1.2Billion we'll get in from not passing on Osbornes thresholds.

Maybe we could send it back to Westminster:na na:

[ronaldo7]

Ah, those GERS figures...The message is finally getting through.

https://t.co/wuLXCc3jQP

[Betty Boop]

The capital city where museums and City Art centre closed two days a week, to save money. An absolute disgrace.

[JeMeSouviens]

The capital city where museums and City Art centre closed two days a week, to save money. An absolute disgrace.

Regions don't really have capitals though, do they?

[hibs0666]

Ah, those GERS figures...The message is finally getting through.

https://t.co/wuLXCc3jQP

That was some ramble. Nowhere does the author challenge a single figure presented in GERS.

[ronaldo7]

That was some ramble. Nowhere does the author challenge a single figure presented in GERS.

That's because the Gers figures are mythical just like the team.

[hibs0666]

That's because the Gers figures are mythical just like the team.

Nope - you want them to be 'mythical' because it means because they are an inconvenient truth. Can you explain, in pounds or Euros, a) why they are mythical and to what extent, b) what the 'real' fiscal situation is in Scotland and c) how the hell we will move from b) to the land of milk and honey that is an independent Scotland?

[Just Alf]

The reason they're "mythical" is because they reflect current Scottish attributed spending/earning, if in the future we were independent then that would all change (Trident etc)

They're real numbers but as with all statistics whoever produces them can put their own slant on it (that goes for both sides). Take oil for instance (I know! I know! :greengrin ) for accounting purposes the English/Scottish border is somewhere off Perth/Dundee putting a big chunk of the (currently much reduced) tax revenue into the rUK ledger.

[hibs0666]

The reason they're "mythical" is because they reflect current Scottish attributed spending/earning, if in the future we were independent then that would all change (Trident etc)

They're real numbers but as with all statistics whoever produces them can put their own slant on it (that goes for both sides). Take oil for instance (I know! I know! :greengrin ) for accounting purposes the English/Scottish border is somewhere off Perth/Dundee putting a big chunk of the (currently much reduced) tax revenue into the rUK ledger.

That's fine, and I can see why nationalists will say that reality is much better. However, if the fuigures are 'mythical' why are they not re-interpreted to reflect 'reality'? And why does the Scottish Government not come out with the 'real' figures rather than endorsing the so-called 'mythical' figures?

The argument that oil is the Scottish panacea is, clearly, no longer in play. The Trident economic argument will be way over-stated as it does not factor in the revenues that will accrue to Scotland through the thousands of people that pick up a wage there - assuming that 6,800 people still work at Faslane, that implies a wage bill somewhere north of £200 million per annum flowing into the local economy as a result of Trident.

Let's be honest - Scotland is running at a very significant deficit they may indeed be a bit lower than £15billion per annum. This deficit will only be addressed by cuts and/or increased taxes. I really hope that nationalists will acknowledge this as a 'reality' of an independent Scotland.

Rather depressingly, I can almost hear the cries of 'Project Fear!' already.

[High-On-Hibs]

If the UK economy resulted in Scotland becoming a 3rd world country. Unionists would argue that an independent Scotland would somehow be a 4th world country.

Under no circumstances within the union will they ever back an independent Scotland, regardless of the level of damage caused within the union.

I had a debate with a number of unionsts (pre-brexit), in which they were absolutely adamant that Scotland was better off in the UK, because it meant it had the added benefit of EU membership. However, now (post-brexit), they have shifted to "oh, a Scotland in the UK and outside the EU is better than an independent Scotland outside the EU."

That's what they do. They just change the goalposts of their arguments when their previous arguments inevitably backfire.

[ronaldo7]

The reason they're "mythical" is because they reflect current Scottish attributed spending/earning, if in the future we were independent then that would all change (Trident etc)

They're real numbers but as with all statistics whoever produces them can put their own slant on it (that goes for both sides). Take oil for instance (I know! I know! :greengrin ) for accounting purposes the English/Scottish border is somewhere off Perth/Dundee putting a big chunk of the (currently much reduced) tax revenue into the rUK ledger.

:kdarts: Spot on. It's a pity some can't see it. I wonder when they will cut their mum's apron strings.:greengrin

[RyeSloan]

If the UK economy resulted in Scotland becoming a 3rd world country. Unionists would argue that an independent Scotland would somehow be a 4th world country.

Under no circumstances within the union will they ever back an independent Scotland, regardless of the level of damage caused within the union.

I had a debate with a number of unionsts (pre-brexit), in which they were absolutely adamant that Scotland was better off in the UK, because it meant it had the added benefit of EU membership. However, now (post-brexit), they have shifted to "oh, a Scotland in the UK and outside the EU is better than an independent Scotland outside the EU."

That's what they do. They just change the goalposts of their arguments when their previous arguments inevitably backfire.

Ha ha just Unionists do that do they...so the SNP have never moved the goal posts regarding their oil price predictions and the arguments that put forward for Indy?

[#FromTheCapital]

If the UK economy resulted in Scotland becoming a 3rd world country. Unionists would argue that an independent Scotland would somehow be a 4th world country.

Under no circumstances within the union will they ever back an independent Scotland, regardless of the level of damage caused within the union.

I had a debate with a number of unionsts (pre-brexit), in which they were absolutely adamant that Scotland was better off in the UK, because it meant it had the added benefit of EU membership. However, now (post-brexit), they have shifted to "oh, a Scotland in the UK and outside the EU is better than an independent Scotland outside the EU."

That's what they do. They just change the goalposts of their arguments when their previous arguments inevitably backfire.

😂😂😂😂

[ronaldo7]

If the UK economy resulted in Scotland becoming a 3rd world country. Unionists would argue that an independent Scotland would somehow be a 4th world country.

Under no circumstances within the union will they ever back an independent Scotland, regardless of the level of damage caused within the union.

I had a debate with a number of unionsts (pre-brexit), in which they were absolutely adamant that Scotland was better off in the UK, because it meant it had the added benefit of EU membership. However, now (post-brexit), they have shifted to "oh, a Scotland in the UK and outside the EU is better than an independent Scotland outside the EU."

That's what they do. They just change the goalposts of their arguments when their previous arguments inevitably backfire.

Chinagate.

https://t.co/0pJ3c15Q3s

[hibs0666]

:kdarts: Spot on. It's a pity some can't see it. I wonder when they will cut their mum's apron strings.:greengrin

So what is the real picture then, seeing as you are clearly an expert on the Scottish fiscal position?

[hibs0666]

😂😂😂😂

The financial benefits of the union are beyond argument surely? Or could Scotland sustain a £15bn annual deficit as an independent country? And if it could, would the EU admit a country that is a bigger economic basket case than Greece?

[#FromTheCapital]

The financial benefits of the union are beyond argument surely? Or could Scotland sustain a £15bn annual deficit as an independent country? And if it could, would the EU admit a country that is a bigger economic basket case than Greece?

Not quite sure why you quoted my post which was just laughing at the irony of HOH's post. I agree that we're better off in the union, I'm a "unionist" as some might say. Fwiw I think the 15bn figure is inflated and it wouldn't be as high as that, but the figures aren't to be sneered at.

[ronaldo7]

So what is the real picture then, seeing as you are clearly an expert on the Scottish fiscal position?

The real picture hasn't been painted yet, we're not Independent. The whole point of Gers, is that they're figures produced "FOR" Scotland "within" the 300 year old Union. Do you agree?

Our fiscal position is driven by another country, and the decisions they make.

I wonder if France or Germany would like to pay a share of Trident or HS2 etc.

[PeeJay]

I'm just glad that the SNP Government have saved the Scottish steel industry, it's a pity the feeble 50 couldn't do the same for Ravenscraig.:wink:

And did I mention that the SNP Scottish Government were the most trusted in the EU. :aok:

Bring it on.

Not sure how you can claim that the "SNP" Scottish Government is the most "trusted" in the EU? Scotland is NOT an independent country and the government is only one in a regional parliament with limited powers: the Bavarians here in Germany trust their regional government far more than the people in Scotland trust their SNP believe me and they have done so for longer! You knock the GERS figures as being mythical then you come up with this "post-factual" statement ... what is it supposed to be based on, how far around the EU did you get in your EU survey: England? :greengrin

[hibs0666]

The real picture hasn't been painted yet, we're not Independent. The whole point of Gers, is that they're figures produced "FOR" Scotland "within" the 300 year old Union. Do you agree?

Our fiscal position is driven by another country, and the decisions they make.

I wonder if France or Germany would like to pay a share of Trident or HS2 etc.

So what you are telling me is that the fiscal picture will be better when the accounts are unravelled, because we'd be Independent. Yet you're not sure why it would be better or to what degree.

You don't buy the current numbers, presumably because they do not back up the argument of a Scotland as a wealthy independent nation - I get that. What we do know though is that the deficit will be hefty, even if it is a bit less than £15 billion a year. So why do nationalists not come out with the truth and say more spending cuts will be needed and/or taxes will have to increase if and when Scotland does its own thing?

[Just Alf]

So what you are telling me is that the fiscal picture will be better when the accounts are unravelled, because we'd be Independent. Yet you're not sure why it would be better or to what degree.

You don't buy the current numbers, presumably because they do not back up the argument of a Scotland as a wealthy independent nation - I get that. What we do know though is that the deficit will be hefty, even if it is a bit less than £15 billion a year. So why do nationalists not come out with the truth and say more spending cuts will be needed and/or taxes will have to increase if and when Scotland does its own thing?
Sorry H, you're maybe missing the point.

No one's saying the figures are wrong, the key thing though is that they would be different.

The difference may be positive or negative, the real discussion should be around what direction an independent government would take us.

eg would we still contribute to things like HS2, Trident, crossrail or the huge upcoming multi million Westminster Parliament refurb.

Personally I think we'd still be in deficit but less than what's currently being driven by Westminster.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

[hibs0666]

Sorry H, you're maybe missing the point.

No one's saying the figures are wrong, the key thing though is that they would be different.

The difference may be positive or negative, the real discussion should be around what direction an independent government would take us.

eg would we still contribute to things like HS2, Trident, crossrail or the huge upcoming multi million Westminster Parliament refurb.

Personally I think we'd still be in deficit but less than what's currently being driven by Westminster.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

I kind of agree. For me though the independence conversation is too narrow. The conversation should be


what direction would an independent government take us?
how does that differ from the current situation?
what do those differences mean financially?
how will the Scottish economy be funded both under the current situation and as an independent nation?


As regards things like Trident, Crossrail etc. financial contributions need to need to be set in a wider context as well. For example, to what degree is Scotland a net funder or beneficiary of the UK submarine programme? Without knowing the details I would put my money on Scotland gaining financially from the programme rather than it being a drain on the Scottish purse.

In a long-winded way, I'm saying that we have to have a mature discussion about the big financial picture, and not focus on narrow components that tend to suit the status quo or independence arguments. It's the least that the people of Scotland should expect after all the nonsense last time round.

[RyeSloan]

I kind of agree. For me though the independence conversation is too narrow. The conversation should be


what direction would an independent government take us?
how does that differ from the current situation?
what do those differences mean financially?
how will the Scottish economy be funded both under the current situation and as an independent nation?


As regards things like Trident, Crossrail etc. financial contributions need to need to be set in a wider context as well. For example, to what degree is Scotland a net funder or beneficiary of the UK submarine programme? Without knowing the details I would put my money on Scotland gaining financially from the programme rather than it being a drain on the Scottish purse.

In a long-winded way, I'm saying that we have to have a mature discussion about the big financial picture, and not focus on narrow components that tend to suit the status quo or independence arguments. It's the least that the people of Scotland should expect after all the nonsense last time round.

You will be waiting a long time for that I'm afraid.

As an aside Governments do not fund economies it's the other way around.

[hibs0666]

You will be waiting a long time for that I'm afraid.

As an aside Governments do not fund economies it's the other way around.

I don't see why it can't be done, if there is a will to do it. The SNP screwed up last time in part to a lack of a compelling, evidence-based, story on the economy - is it really going to make the same mistake all over again?

[JeMeSouviens]

I kind of agree. For me though the independence conversation is too narrow. The conversation should be


what direction would an independent government take us?
how does that differ from the current situation?
what do those differences mean financially?
how will the Scottish economy be funded both under the current situation and as an independent nation?


As regards things like Trident, Crossrail etc. financial contributions need to need to be set in a wider context as well. For example, to what degree is Scotland a net funder or beneficiary of the UK submarine programme? Without knowing the details I would put my money on Scotland gaining financially from the programme rather than it being a drain on the Scottish purse.

In a long-winded way, I'm saying that we have to have a mature discussion about the big financial picture, and not focus on narrow components that tend to suit the status quo or independence arguments. It's the least that the people of Scotland should expect after all the nonsense last time round.

Wow, I actually agree with all of that with the exception of submarines. Assuming you mean Trident replacement, the pro-rata costs will be orders of magnitude greater than the local economic benefit.

What you haven't covered is:

- how Scotland copes with the death of Barnett* (~£6 Bn of extra public spending)

I personally don't think there's any point in comparing independence versus the subsidised status quo when the subsidy will disappear as soon as the "threat" of Scottish independence is removed. Unionists need to engage in a mature big picture discussion as well. To me, unsustainable levels of public spending are unsustainable whether they would result in an overreliance on borrowing (independence) or an overreliance on a strategy of the perpetual begging bowl (union). Either constitutional arrangement needs a plan to fix this. With independence we make our own plan which seems a far healthier way to go about things to me.



* and on a related note, how Scottish Unionism copes with the moral dilemma of ripping off rUK taxpayers in poorly funded areas, eg. Wales, N England.

[hibs0666]

Wow, I actually agree with all of that with the exception of submarines. Assuming you mean Trident replacement, the pro-rata costs will be orders of magnitude greater than the local economic benefit.

What you haven't covered is:

- how Scotland copes with the death of Barnett* (~£6 Bn of extra public spending)

I personally don't think there's any point in comparing independence versus the subsidised status quo when the subsidy will disappear as soon as the "threat" of Scottish independence is removed. Unionists need to engage in a mature big picture discussion as well. To me, unsustainable levels of public spending are unsustainable whether they would result in an overreliance on borrowing (independence) or an overreliance on a strategy of the perpetual begging bowl (union). Either constitutional arrangement needs a plan to fix this. With independence we make our own plan which seems a far healthier way to go about things to me.



* and on a related note, how Scottish Unionism copes with the moral dilemma of ripping off rUK taxpayers in poorly funded areas, eg. Wales, N England.

I'm not sure about your point on the UK submarine programme (Astute plus Successor fleets). As far as i can see the latest estimate on the total lifetime cost of Trident is about £200bn over 50 years, or £4bn a year, so our share is about £320 million per annum, give or take. Faslane employs about 6,800 people. Taking staff costs as one component of economic benefit, staff costs will amount to something like £250 million. You don't have to go much further to see how the UK submarine programme could enable a positive economic benefit in Scotland.

What makes you think that the Barnett formula is going to disappear? If that is the case then of course it should be factored into any financial analysis. Hwever, if it is simply a future risk then that it would have to be treated entirely differently.

[JeMeSouviens]

I'm not sure about your point on the UK submarine programme (Astute plus Successor fleets). As far as i can see the latest estimate on the total lifetime cost of Trident is about £200bn over 50 years, or £4bn a year, so our share is about £320 million per annum, give or take. Faslane employs about 6,800 people. Taking staff costs as one component of economic benefit, staff costs will amount to something like £250 million. You don't have to go much further to see how the UK submarine programme could enable a positive economic benefit in Scotland.

What makes you think that the Barnett formula is going to disappear? If that is the case then of course it should be factored into any financial analysis. However, if it is simply a future risk then that it would have to be treated entirely differently.

Since when were costs a benefit? Is your £250M supposed to equate to their salaries? 250M/6.8K = almost £40K pa, as an average, really? So what benefit to rax revenue would actually result? £100M? And that's on your generous assumptions. So we're already £220M down.

There was plenty of chat from rUK, mainly Tory politicians including frontbenchers about scrapping Barnett pre-2011. When indyref came on the horizon, they shut up. As soon as it was over, the backbenchers resumed moaning*. The UK is looking at Tory govt for the foreseeable. As soon as the perceived threat of Scottish independence is removed it will be gone as night follows day. Why on earth else would they maintain a manifestly unfair subsidy?


*actually justifiably imo. I notice you didn't reply on why you're happy to rip off rUK taxpayers. Where's your solidarity now? :wink:

[CropleyWasGod]

Since when were costs a benefit? Is your £250M supposed to equate to their salaries? 250M/6.8K = almost £40K pa, as an average, really? So what benefit to rax revenue would actually result? £100M? And that's on your generous assumptions. So we're already £220M down.

There was plenty of chat from rUK, mainly Tory politicians including frontbenchers about scrapping Barnett pre-2011. When indyref came on the horizon, they shut up. As soon as it was over, the backbenchers resumed moaning*. The UK is looking at Tory govt for the foreseeable. As soon as the perceived threat of Scottish independence is removed it will be gone as night follows day. Why on earth else would they maintain a manifestly unfair subsidy?


*actually justifiably imo. I notice you didn't reply on why you're happy to rip off rUK taxpayers. Where's your solidarity now? :wink:

I read it as it being money that would be available for spending in the wider economy. Thereby increasing the VAT take, and supporting local and national businesses.

[hibs0666]

Since when were costs a benefit? Is your £250M supposed to equate to their salaries? 250M/6.8K = almost £40K pa, as an average, really? So what benefit to rax revenue would actually result? £100M? And that's on your generous assumptions. So we're already £220M down.

There was plenty of chat from rUK, mainly Tory politicians including frontbenchers about scrapping Barnett pre-2011. When indyref came on the horizon, they shut up. As soon as it was over, the backbenchers resumed moaning*. The UK is looking at Tory govt for the foreseeable. As soon as the perceived threat of Scottish independence is removed it will be gone as night follows day. Why on earth else would they maintain a manifestly unfair subsidy?


*actually justifiably imo. I notice you didn't reply on why you're happy to rip off rUK taxpayers. Where's your solidarity now? :wink:

I'm not sure what you mean about conflating costs with benefits. The UK submarine programme supports 6,800 direct jobs, and is therefore delivering a benefit to the Scottish economy in exactly the same way as it would if it were, say, Microsoft that was creating those jobs. The fact that there is a financial contribution coming from Scottish tax-payers to fund this jobs is is neither here nor there as regards to the fact that the economic benefit exists. If you then add on services jobs, and Scottish jobs jobs within the supply chain, then it isn't too difficult to get to a £320 million+ benefit. Scotland is, most certainly, not down £320 million per annum as the headline figures might suggest.

I'm not worried about a bit of chat as an indicator that the Barnett formula is about to be scrapped. Is there any manifesto commitment in place to replace Barnett? Has there ever been a manifesto commitment along those lines.

As regards the ethical standpoint on Barnett, Scotland's landmass is about 60% larger than England with about a tenth of the population. With much lower populaton densities the delivery cost of public services is of course going to be higher, and the Barnett formula reflects this. So, no ethical issues from me I'm afraid.

[easty]

I'm not sure about your point on the UK submarine programme (Astute plus Successor fleets). As far as i can see the latest estimate on the total lifetime cost of Trident is about £200bn over 50 years, or £4bn a year, so our share is about £320 million per annum, give or take. Faslane employs about 6,800 people. Taking staff costs as one component of economic benefit, staff costs will amount to something like £250 million. You don't have to go much further to see how the UK submarine programme could enable a positive economic benefit in Scotland.


That's surely making an assumption (based on what exactly?) that all 6800 jobs at Faslane are dependant on Trident.

[hibs0666]

That's surely making an assumption (based on what exactly?) that all 6800 jobs at Faslane are dependant on Trident.

No, I'm making the assumptions that a) the UK submarine programme employs 6,800 people at Faslane, and b) the vast bulk of the lifetime cost of the UK submarine programme will be incurred in support the nuclear deterrent. Of the 6,800 total employee, about 4,600 are employed by the MoD and the remaining 2,200 by Babcock.

There is no breakdown of employment at Faslane by submarine fleet.

[Just Alf]

I kind of agree. For me though the independence conversation is too narrow. The conversation should be


what direction would an independent government take us?
how does that differ from the current situation?
what do those differences mean financially?
how will the Scottish economy be funded both under the current situation and as an independent nation?


As regards things like Trident, Crossrail etc. financial contributions need to need to be set in a wider context as well. For example, to what degree is Scotland a net funder or beneficiary of the UK submarine programme? Without knowing the details I would put my money on Scotland gaining financially from the programme rather than it being a drain on the Scottish purse.

In a long-winded way, I'm saying that we have to have a mature discussion about the big financial picture, and not focus on narrow components that tend to suit the status quo or independence arguments. It's the least that the people of Scotland should expect after all the nonsense last time round.

Agree with that :agree: (mostly :wink: ... we'd need to root out the Trident cost/benefit picture a bit more)

And what you've said here is exactly what the independence side of the house would need to explain to people across the country if they want to get neutrals onside and maybe even the odd convert, also just to muddy the argument somewhat, maybe in an independent Scotland we'd WANT to contribute to the likes of HS2/3!

As an aside, if the SNP were to deliver independence in my lifetime they'd get my vote in the 1st Scottish general election but for the following election id definitely be a floater.

[JeMeSouviens]

I'm not sure what you mean about conflating costs with benefits. The UK submarine programme supports 6,800 direct jobs, and is therefore delivering a benefit to the Scottish economy in exactly the same way as it would if it were, say, Microsoft that was creating those jobs. The fact that there is a financial contribution coming from Scottish tax-payers to fund this jobs is is neither here nor there as regards to the fact that the economic benefit exists. If you then add on services jobs, and Scottish jobs jobs within the supply chain, then it isn't too difficult to get to a £320 million+ benefit. Scotland is, most certainly, not down £320 million per annum as the headline figures might suggest.

I'm not worried about a bit of chat as an indicator that the Barnett formula is about to be scrapped. Is there any manifesto commitment in place to replace Barnett? Has there ever been a manifesto commitment along those lines.

As regards the ethical standpoint on Barnett, Scotland's landmass is about 60% larger than England with about a tenth of the population. With much lower populaton densities the delivery cost of public services is of course going to be higher, and the Barnett formula reflects this. So, no ethical issues from me I'm afraid.

£320M - I think you're kidding yourself with an airy hand wave there. You *might* be able to make a breezy, nebulous "worth £XM to the local economy" type claim but really that's of no interest here. It's the direct cost vs benefit to the public purse that's at issue. If the £320M wasn't spent on useless immoral weaponry it would either be spent on something worthwhile with similar benefit or not raised as taxation therefore leaving it in the hands of people who would spend it themselves or it wouldn't be borrowed with those attendant long term costs.

Nice try on the population densities, btw. :wink: The Barnett formula reflects nothing of the sort. It is purely a ratio of total population sizes as they were in the late 70s, there was never any attempt to take need into account. Your long term strategy for Scotland is "let's sponge off England at the expense of English taxpayers". Might as well be honest about it.

[hibs0666]

£320M - I think you're kidding yourself with an airy hand wave there. You *might* be able to make a breezy, nebulous "worth £XM to the local economy" type claim but really that's of no interest here. It's the direct cost vs benefit to the public purse that's at issue. If the £320M wasn't spent on useless immoral weaponry it would either be spent on something worthwhile with similar benefit or not raised as taxation therefore leaving it in the hands of people who would spend it themselves or it wouldn't be borrowed with those attendant long term costs.

Nice try on the population densities, btw. :wink: The Barnett formula reflects nothing of the sort. It is purely a ratio of total population sizes as they were in the late 70s, there was never any attempt to take need into account. Your long term strategy for Scotland is "let's sponge off England at the expense of English taxpayers". Might as well be honest about it.

Economic benefit ain't nebulous and of course it is of interest. You've introduced morality and that is fine, but there lets not kid on - there may well be a positive economic benefit to Scotland from the submarine programme.

You asked about the ethics of Scotland receiving greater per head funding and I told you that I had no problem with that due tothe higher cost of service delivery that we have in Scotland.

I hope that your ethics are such that you are happy to tell the people of Scotland that taxes have to rise by £1000 per head if existing levels of government expenditure are to be maintained in an independent Scotland.

[High-On-Hibs]

The financial benefits of the union are beyond argument surely? Or could Scotland sustain a £15bn annual deficit as an independent country? And if it could, would the EU admit a country that is a bigger economic basket case than Greece?

How does Scotland sustain a £15bn annual deficit in this perfect United Kingdom of ours? Are the rest of the UK going to pay that off for us? Do you seriously believe that?

Scotland is running up an increasing fiscal deficit year on year, but then so is every other country in the western world with the exception of Norway. I've yet to witness any riots or panics anywhere else in the west as a result of this though.

[JeMeSouviens]

Economic benefit ain't nebulous and of course it is of interest. You've introduced morality and that is fine, but there lets not kid on - there may well be a positive economic benefit to Scotland from the submarine programme.

You asked about the ethics of Scotland receiving greater per head funding and I told you that I had no problem with that due tothe higher cost of service delivery that we have in Scotland.

I hope that your ethics are such that you are happy to tell the people of Scotland that taxes have to rise by £1000 per head if existing levels of government expenditure are to be maintained in an independent Scotland.

If the submarine programme is going to happen anyway, then yes there is a +ve economic benefit to Scotland in it being in Scotland. I'm very far from convinced (in fact I'd be amazed but feel free to show your working) that taxation raised in Scotland as a result of subs being based here vs nominal Scottish contribution to the cost of the subs in total is a +ve.

There is no way the higher cost of service delivery equates to (or is even approaching) +20%, which is the gap in identifiable per-capita spending between Scotland and England.

I don't have a problem telling people that iScotland would in all likelihood have to bridge a considerable gap between revenue and expenditure and one approach to that is indeed raising taxation.

However, I think it's fair to also point out that the UK will in all likelihood not continue to splurge money on Scotland (unless we can maintain a perpetual state of near-independence which would some political manoeuvre to pull off) and will in any case have considerably less public expenditure in general in a shrunken post-Brexit economy. So we're ****ed anway.

We're up **** creek, with independence we can look for a paddle, with continuing Union we hope someone else finds one and deigns to give us a wee shot.

[JeMeSouviens]

How does Scotland sustain a £15bn annual deficit in this perfect United Kingdom of ours? Are the rest of the UK going to pay that off for us? Do you seriously believe that?

Scotland is running up an increasing fiscal deficit year on year, but then so is every other country in the western world with the exception of Norway. I've yet to witness any riots or panics anywhere else in the west as a result of this though.

He doesn't mean a deficit in the normal sense. Scotland doesn't borrow money.

He means there is a £15Bn gap between -

the total of public expenditure in Scotland and Scotland's nominal share of public expenditure in the UK for the benefit of the UK as a whole

and

the nominal total of revenue raised by the UK in taxes attributed to economic activity in Scotland

[ronaldo7]

Not sure how you can claim that the "SNP" Scottish Government is the most "trusted" in the EU? Scotland is NOT an independent country and the government is only one in a regional parliament with limited powers: the Bavarians here in Germany trust their regional government far more than the people in Scotland trust their SNP believe me and they have done so for longer! You knock the GERS figures as being mythical then you come up with this "post-factual" statement ... what is it supposed to be based on, how far around the EU did you get in your EU survey: England? :greengrin

It was actually a comment which was made after it came out in the Scottish social attitudes survey back in March of this year. No other Government got near to the 73% satisfaction of Scots. Happy for you to provide some stats from Wallonia or some far flung area of the Eu.:wink:

You don't have to tell me about the Scottish Parly and it's status. I know full well that we have people determined to undermine it at every turn. I see and hear it every week.

[ronaldo7]

So what you are telling me is that the fiscal picture will be better when the accounts are unravelled, because we'd be Independent. Yet you're not sure why it would be better or to what degree.

You don't buy the current numbers, presumably because they do not back up the argument of a Scotland as a wealthy independent nation - I get that. What we do know though is that the deficit will be hefty, even if it is a bit less than £15 billion a year. So why do nationalists not come out with the truth and say more spending cuts will be needed and/or taxes will have to increase if and when Scotland does its own thing?

I'm not telling you anything, you just made it up yourself, a bit like the Gers figures.

The fiscal picture cannot be painted until we are Independent. We can project the situation, just like any other Government in the world. Most of them run deficits, and they seem to roll along nicely. I wonder how much the UK's deficit is at the moment, and how much debt they are in?

FWIW, I am prepared to pay more to be Independent, and to have the decisions in our own hands. Higher taxes, and better services, yip, bring it on.

[hibs0666]

I'm not telling you anything, you just made it up yourself, a bit like the Gers figures.

The fiscal picture cannot be painted until we are Independent. We can project the situation, just like any other Government in the world. Most of them run deficits, and they seem to roll along nicely. I wonder how much the UK's deficit is at the moment, and how much debt they are in?

FWIW, I am prepared to pay more to be Independent, and to have the decisions in our own hands. Higher taxes, and better services, yip, bring it on.

Of course it can. It suits a nationalist agenda to say 'it's away hard'. It really isn't and is a total vop out. How can you advocate independence when you cannot say that it is economically viable??

How much extra tax are you up for? A penny in the pound? 10p in the pound? And how much do the rest of us poor canute have to divvy up for your wee economic experiment??

[ihibs7]

Talking of populations, Scotland Wales and Ireland have all had periods of depopulation in the last couple of hundred years as arguably a result of London driven policy. I seem to remember reading that 1980s Scotland was the fastest depopulating European country ahead of even east Germany. In a single market eu, that's probably irrelevant and unlikely to re occur. Post Brexit, immigration controls it's a very real possibility. Well it might be a real possibility if we ever find out what Brexit means, apart from Brexit obviously.

Why don't they tell us? The lack of transparency should make us all afraid.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[McD]

I'm not telling you anything, you just made it up yourself, a bit like the Gers figures.

The fiscal picture cannot be painted until we are Independent. We can project the situation, just like any other Government in the world. Most of them run deficits, and they seem to roll along nicely. I wonder how much the UK's deficit is at the moment, and how much debt they are in?

FWIW, I am prepared to pay more to be Independent, and to have the decisions in our own hands. Higher taxes, and better services, yip, bring it on.


Of course it can. It suits a nationalist agenda to say 'it's away hard'. It really isn't and is a total vop out. How can you advocate independence when you cannot say that it is economically viable??

How much extra tax are you up for? A penny in the pound? 10p in the pound? And how much do the rest of us poor canute have to divvy up for your wee economic experiment??


better services? You can guarantee we'll have better services? Or is it just as likely (arguably more), that we'll all be paying more taxes that you've volunteered us for, simply to at best maintain the standard we have just now? What if we end up paying more for even less/poorer devices?

It comes across that you are advocating independence whilst just shrugging off any financial difficulties. The fiscal picture cannot be painted until we are independent? So the fiscal picture could actually be complete meltdown? as for projecting, people on this thread have been doing so, and you have responded by casting aspersions on everyone of them.

[High-On-Hibs]

He doesn't mean a deficit in the normal sense. Scotland doesn't borrow money.

He means there is a £15Bn gap between -

the total of public expenditure in Scotland and Scotland's nominal share of public expenditure in the UK for the benefit of the UK as a whole

and

the nominal total of revenue raised by the UK in taxes attributed to economic activity in Scotland

Of course Scotland borrows money. It may not be laid out on paper that way, but ultimately any UK government borrowing that Scotland recieves through the block grant is still our own liability. Being a member state of the UK doesn't absolve us of that.

[High-On-Hibs]

Of course it can. It suits a nationalist agenda to say 'it's away hard'. It really isn't and is a total vop out. How can you advocate independence when you cannot say that it is economically viable??

How much extra tax are you up for? A penny in the pound? 10p in the pound? And how much do the rest of us poor canute have to divvy up for your wee economic experiment??

Nor can you say that it is economically unviable. It is pure speculation on both sides. Just as it's pure speculation over the impact that Brexit will have over the wider UK economy. Nobody really knows anything, it's just speculation.

As for the second part of your post. You assume that an independent Scotland would function under the same system of taxation that it currently does. Under the current system, Scotland can't raise the upper rate of tax without raising the lower rate of tax by the same margin. Which is why they're hesitant to change anything at this stage. Even with their "grand new powers".

[ronaldo7]

Of course it can. It suits a nationalist agenda to say 'it's away hard'. It really isn't and is a total vop out. How can you advocate independence when you cannot say that it is economically viable??

How much extra tax are you up for? A penny in the pound? 10p in the pound? And how much do the rest of us poor canute have to divvy up for your wee economic experiment??

Great stuff. Avoid the only question I've asked of you and ask more from me.

When you decide to tell me if Gers are anything to do with an Independent Scotland, then I'll oblige you with answers.:aok:

[ronaldo7]

better services? You can guarantee we'll have better services? Or is it just as likely (arguably more), that we'll all be paying more taxes that you've volunteered us for, simply to at best maintain the standard we have just now? What if we end up paying more for even less/poorer devices?

It comes across that you are advocating independence whilst just shrugging off any financial difficulties. The fiscal picture cannot be painted until we are independent? So the fiscal picture could actually be complete meltdown? as for projecting, people on this thread have been doing so, and you have responded by casting aspersions on everyone of them.

No guarantees here, just like we've no guarantees where we are at the moment. Better services/worse services, who's to know. I'm prepared to go for Indy as I know we couldn't do any worse than what's been done just now.

As for people casting aspersions, I'm sure you're in a better place than me to offer a view.

Now, back to the subject matter of Gers. They've got **** all to do with an Independent Scotland.

[jockodile]

The figures may be full of inaccurate data that would simply not apply in an indy Scotland but even as a SNP supporter I would want clear explanations ahead of any future ref.

More to the point though is any finger pointing should not be at Holyrood who run a balanced budget, but to Westminster for mismanagement to the tune of 15b.

What exactly are the British planning to do about it.

[PeeJay]

It was actually a comment which was made after it came out in the Scottish social attitudes survey back in March of this year. No other Government got near to the 73% satisfaction of Scots. Happy for you to provide some stats from Wallonia or some far flung area of the Eu.:wink:

You don't have to tell me about the Scottish Parly and it's status. I know full well that we have people determined to undermine it at every turn. I see and hear it every week.

"And did I mention that the SNP Scottish Government were the most trusted in the EU."

You mentioned it, but it seems not to be true, I'm afraid! The 2015 poll did not compare like governments in the EU as you insinuate, it only asked how many people were pleased with the Scottish government (73%) and the only other reference point used was the UK government (23%). (So it seems you really didn't get any further than England as I surmised! :greengrin)
Your claim about the Scottish government being the "most trusted in the EU" appears therefore to be a completely made up one (unless you are referring to another survey that I have been unable as yet to locate, which is of course perfectly possible)! :confused:

http://www.gov.scot/Publications/2016/03/5843/3

BTW - my reference to the status of the Scottish government is entirely pertinent in light of the fact that you seem to be claiming something on its behalf that does not appear to stand up to any scrutiny (unless I am missing something?)

[hibs0666]

Great stuff. Avoid the only question I've asked of you and ask more from me.

When you decide to tell me if Gers are anything to do with an Independent Scotland, then I'll oblige you with answers.:aok:

I'm not sure what you're asking here, but I'll give it a bash anyway.

Situation:

GERS is produced and published by the Scottish Government annually
GERS addresses three questions - 1) What revenues were raised in Scotland? 2) How much did the country pay for the public services that were consumed? and 3) To what extent did the revenues raised cover the costs of these public services?
GERS reports only on public sector revenue and expenditure, not the entire Scottish economy
GERS reports on all income received by the Scottish public sector
GERS is produced independently of Scottish Ministers and has been assessed by the UK Statistics Authority as being produced in line with the Code of Practice for Official Statistics e.g. sound methodology
GERS aims to capture all spending that benefits the residents of Scotland. This means it assigns Scotland a share of some expenditure which takes place outside Scotland
GERS does not assign to Scotland expenditure which occurs in Scotland but benefits non-Scottish residents


Complication:

Under current UK budgetary accounting procedures, separate figures for Scotland are not available for most revenues, and are therefore estimated by considering each revenue stream separately. Where Scottish data is unavailable, GERS estimates revenue using methodologies refined over a number of years following consultation with and feedback.
Public sector expenditure is estimated on the basis of spending incurred for the benefit of Scottish residents. A particular public sector expenditure is apportioned to Scotland if the benefit of the expenditure is thought to accrue to Scottish residents.
The spending priorities of an independent Scottish government are unknown


Conclusion:

GERS reflects the current level of income of the Scottish public sector
GERS reflects the current level of expenditure that is made for the benefit of the Scottish population.
Since GERS reflects current level of income and expenditure, GERS is an entirely relevant starting point for consideration of the fiscal position of the Scottish public sector in an independent Scotland


Anyhow, with your question answered, are you now going to tell me how much extra tax are you are prepared to levy on the population of Scotland for the privilege of being a citizen of an independent Scotland??

[hibs0666]

How does Scotland sustain a £15bn annual deficit in this perfect United Kingdom of ours? Are the rest of the UK going to pay that off for us? Do you seriously believe that?

Scotland is running up an increasing fiscal deficit year on year, but then so is every other country in the western world with the exception of Norway. I've yet to witness any riots or panics anywhere else in the west as a result of this though.

Let's be clear here - Looking at public sectors fiscal balances, the UK is currently running at a deficit that is 4% of GDP. For Scotland, the deficit is running at 9% of GDP. The Scottish deficit is broadly in line with what we have seen historically in Greece. Since Greece was ordered to get its act together, Scotland would I'm sure be told to sort itself out if Scotland were to somehow retain its EU membership.

[grunt]

I'm not sure what you're asking here, but I'll give it a bash anyway.

Situation:

GERS is produced and published by the Scottish Government annually
GERS addresses three questions - 1) What revenues were raised in Scotland? 2) How much did the country pay for the public services that were consumed? and 3) To what extent did the revenues raised cover the costs of these public services?
GERS reports only on public sector revenue and expenditure, not the entire Scottish economy
GERS reports on all income received by the Scottish public sector
GERS is produced independently of Scottish Ministers and has been assessed by the UK Statistics Authority as being produced in line with the Code of Practice for Official Statistics e.g. sound methodology
GERS aims to capture all spending that benefits the residents of Scotland. This means it assigns Scotland a share of some expenditure which takes place outside Scotland
GERS does not assign to Scotland expenditure which occurs in Scotland but benefits non-Scottish residents


Complication:

Under current UK budgetary accounting procedures, separate figures for Scotland are not available for most revenues, and are therefore estimated by considering each revenue stream separately. Where Scottish data is unavailable, GERS estimates revenue using methodologies refined over a number of years following consultation with and feedback.
Public sector expenditure is estimated on the basis of spending incurred for the benefit of Scottish residents. A particular public sector expenditure is apportioned to Scotland if the benefit of the expenditure is thought to accrue to Scottish residents.
The spending priorities of an independent Scottish government are unknown


Conclusion:

GERS reflects the current level of income of the Scottish public sector
GERS reflects the current level of expenditure that is made for the benefit of the Scottish population.
Since GERS reflects current level of income and expenditure, GERS is an entirely relevant starting point for consideration of the fiscal position of the Scottish public sector in an independent Scotland


Anyhow, with your question answered, are you now going to tell me how much extra tax are you are prepared to levy on the population of Scotland for the privilege of being a citizen of an independent Scotland??Thanks for posting this, it has cleared up a lot of questions. Raised a few more too!

[JeMeSouviens]

Of course Scotland borrows money. It may not be laid out on paper that way, but ultimately any UK government borrowing that Scotland recieves through the block grant is still our own liability. Being a member state of the UK doesn't absolve us of that.

Uk govt borrowing is UK govt borrowing, full stop. An iScotland might choose to take on some of the costs of servicing that debt as part of a wider negotiation but Scotland does not currently exist as a country and has no liability. There is no such thing as a "member state of the UK", the UK is a unitary state.

[JeMeSouviens]

Let's be clear here - Looking at public sectors fiscal balances, the UK is currently running at a deficit that is 4% of GDP. For Scotland, the deficit is running at 9% of GDP. The Scottish deficit is broadly in line with what we have seen historically in Greece. Since Greece was ordered to get its act together, Scotland would I'm sure be told to sort itself out if Scotland were to somehow retain its EU membership.

Greece has had various fiscal constraints imposed as the price of a bailout, it's nothing to do with retaining EU membership.

I agree a 9% deficit would be unsustainable btw, but you're randomly conflating quite separate things.

[JeMeSouviens]

Anyhow, with your question answered, are you now going to tell me how much extra tax are you are prepared to levy on the population of Scotland for the privilege of being a citizen of an independent Scotland??

Well I guess we already know how much you're prepared to sponge off rUK taxpayers for the privilege of your "solidarity", £6 Billion. Nice.

[hibs0666]

Greece has had various fiscal constraints imposed as the price of a bailout, it's nothing to do with retaining EU membership.

I agree a 9% deficit would be unsustainable btw, but you're randomly conflating quite separate things.

Conflating? OK, let me elaborate:


Scotland wishes to gain/maintain EU membership
The Scottish Government is running a deficit worth 9% of GDP
Interventions in the Greek economy indicate that a 9% deficit is not politically acceptable to other EU members
Scotland will have to make very significant cuts in public sector expenditure and/or significantly increase taxes as part of any agreement to gain/maintain EU membership

[hibs0666]

Well I guess we already know how much you're prepared to sponge off rUK taxpayers for the privilege of your "solidarity", £6 Billion. Nice.

I do not think of Scotland as a nation of spongers - frankly it's incredible to me that a supporter of independence should make this claim. :confused:

[RyeSloan]

Well I guess we already know how much you're prepared to sponge off rUK taxpayers for the privilege of your "solidarity", £6 Billion. Nice.

And the point being?

I'm confused...so for years we have been told that despite popular opinion Scotland does not sponge off the rest of the U.K. Yet your comment above is not the first to accuse the poster of supporting the fact that Scotland sponges off the rest of the U.K. You can't have it both ways.

A fundamental part of an economic and monetary union is fiscal transfers...the UK wouldn't work without it so therefore it's is entirely acceptable that this transfer of money exists. It's not sponging it's helping to maintain balance within the economies and is one of the fundamental flaws of the Euro that they have no such mechanism.

Anyway he is asking a relatively straight forward question that seems to be ignored or receives responses like the above. A cynical mind might begin to wonder why...

[JeMeSouviens]

Conflating? OK, let me elaborate:


Scotland wishes to gain/maintain EU membership
The Scottish Government is running a deficit worth 9% of GDP
Interventions in the Greek economy indicate that a 9% deficit is not politically acceptable to other EU members
Scotland will have to make very significant cuts in public sector expenditure and/or significantly increase taxes as part of any agreement to gain/maintain EU membership


Saying the same thing again is not elaboration.

The Greek govt was bailed out by the Troika. In return for the money they imposed strict fiscal constraints on the Greeks. Unless/until an iScotland received a bail out, we would not be in the same position. The Greeks did not have conditions imposed upon their EU membership, they had conditions imposed upon their bail out.

[JeMeSouviens]

I do not think of Scotland as a nation of spongers - frankly it's incredible to me that a supporter of independence should make this claim. :confused:

Your position is that Scotland is in economic dire straits to the point where it cannot support its current level of public expenditure (I agree). However, you do not propose that we should shoulder the burden of rectifying this situation. You propose to just keep on putting out the Barnett begging bowl, to the direct detriment of taxpayers in other regions.

How else would you categorise that if not sponging?

[hibs0666]

Saying the same thing again is not elaboration.

The Greek govt was bailed out by the Troika. In return for the money they imposed strict fiscal constraints on the Greeks. Unless/until an iScotland received a bail out, we would not be in the same position. The Greeks did not have conditions imposed upon their EU membership, they had conditions imposed upon their bail out.

Nope, I am asserting that Scotland won't get near the table whilst it is running a deficit of the scale we have currently. That has got zip to do with bail outs.

[JeMeSouviens]

Nope, I am asserting that Scotland won't get near the table whilst it is running a deficit of the scale we have currently. That has got zip to do with bail outs.

Well why bring the Greeks and the conditions imposed on their bailout into it at all then? That's just stupid (or a deliberate attempt to confuse).

[hibs0666]

Your position is that Scotland is in economic dire straits to the point where it cannot support its current level of public expenditure (I agree). However, you do not propose that we should shoulder the burden of rectifying this situation. You propose to just keep on putting out the Barnett begging bowl, to the direct detriment of taxpayers in other regions.

How else would you categorise that if not sponging?

Scotland has a fiscal settlement framework agreed with the UK that has been in place for a long time. There has been no manifesto pledge to change that framework.

And yet you refer to this agreed settlement as sponging? Really?

[JeMeSouviens]

Scotland has a fiscal settlement framework agreed with the UK that has been in place for a long time. There has been no manifesto pledge to change that framework.

And yet you refer to this agreed settlement as sponging? Really?

Yes.

If you want to stay in the Union for reasons of solidarity, then stop ripping off taxpayers in other regions.

If you want to stay in the Union because otherwise you think you'd pay more tax, then you're sponging.

[hibs0666]

Yes.

If you want to stay in the Union for reasons of solidarity, then stop ripping off taxpayers in other regions.

If you want to stay in the Union because otherwise you think you'd pay more tax, then you're sponging.

LOL each to their own I suppose. Would I be correct in assuming that, as the SNP government has no intention of re-negotiating the Barnett formula, or return £6 billion per annum to the UK purse, that it is sponging? :rolleyes:

[RyeSloan]

Yes.

If you want to stay in the Union for reasons of solidarity, then stop ripping off taxpayers in other regions.

If you want to stay in the Union because otherwise you think you'd pay more tax, then you're sponging.

It's not sponging...unless you are suggesting that in a IScotland there would be no redistribution of tax income from one area to another.

Monetary unions require fiscal transfers, that's how they work (and why the Euro has been so disastrous for many of its members). Hence why nations that peg their currencies to others (normally the dollar) almost certainly have to break that link at some point as there is no mechanism to rebalance. Which of course is just one of many questions as to how an iScotland would continue to use the pound.

[JeMeSouviens]

It's not sponging...unless you are suggesting that in a IScotland there would be no redistribution of tax income from one area to another.

Monetary unions require fiscal transfers, that's how they work (and why the Euro has been so disastrous for many of its members). Hence why nations that peg their currencies to others (normally the dollar) almost certainly have to break that link at some point as there is no mechanism to rebalance. Which of course is just one of many questions as to how an iScotland would continue to use the pound.

You can't really describe the UK as a monetary union, it's a unitary state with its own currency. As for moving tax from one area to another, yes, but it should be to balance things out so everybody gets a fair share. Not so that per-capita public spending in one region is 120% of UK average due to using 40 year old population ratios between that region and a much larger one next door.

An iScotland would have to transition to its own currency as soon as practicable. I don't think anyone (is now) arguing otherwise?

[JeMeSouviens]

LOL each to their own I suppose. Would I be correct in assuming that, as the SNP government has no intention of re-negotiating the Barnett formula, or return £6 billion per annum to the UK purse, that it is sponging? :rolleyes:

The SNP has 2 stated aims in its constitution: independence asap and, in the meantime, pursuing Scotland's "national" interest. It is clearly in our interest to sponge as much as possible from rUK.

So yes, but what else would you expect them to do? At least their overriding aim is for our country to stand on its own feet.

Meanwhile, Unionists apparently are supposed to want to enjoy solidarity with their fellow Brits but what that actually seems to entail is keep Scotland economically depressed and subsidised.

[hibs0666]

The SNP has 2 stated aims in its constitution: independence asap and, in the meantime, pursuing Scotland's "national" interest. It is clearly in our interest to sponge as much as possible from rUK.

So yes, but what else would you expect them to do? At least their overriding aim is for our country to stand on its own feet.

Meanwhile, Unionists apparently are supposed to want to enjoy solidarity with their fellow Brits but what that actually seems to entail is keep Scotland economically depressed and subsidised.

What an utterly depressing view of the future of this country you paint, and the attitude of the those that live here.

[JeMeSouviens]

What an utterly depressing view you paint of the future of this country and the attitude of the those that live here.

Utterly depressed sounds about right. It was bad enough when we decided to outsource our government to another country. That that other country seems hellbent on a path of isolationist, xenophobic madness is not helping.

[hibs0666]

Utterly depressed sounds about right. It was bad enough when we decided to outsource our government to another country. That that other country seems hellbent on a path of isolationist, xenophobic madness is not helping.

Aye whatever. I'll let you get back to your sponging.

[RyeSloan]

You can't really describe the UK as a monetary union, it's a unitary state with its own currency. As for moving tax from one area to another, yes, but it should be to balance things out so everybody gets a fair share. Not so that per-capita public spending in one region is 120% of UK average due to using 40 year old population ratios between that region and a much larger one next door.

An iScotland would have to transition to its own currency as soon as practicable. I don't think anyone (is now) arguing otherwise?

Fair enough although the effects of the transfers are exactly the same.

I must have missed the SNP stating that an IScotland would be transitioning to its own currency as part of Indy...sounds a complicated and rather dangerous path (although I'm not disagreeing with it per se)

As this discussion has shown the route to Independence is a rather torturous one and one that could have very significant implications to the nations ability to support its current level of spending. Simply arguing that it will be fine cause we won't be sponging anymore is not really an examination of the implications and it will be interesting to see if any serious attempt is made this time around to quantify what those might be.

[JeMeSouviens]

Fair enough although the effects of the transfers are exactly the same.

I must have missed the SNP stating that an IScotland would be transitioning to its own currency as part of Indy...sounds a complicated and rather dangerous path (although I'm not disagreeing with it per se)

As this discussion has shown the route to Independence is a rather torturous one and one that could have very significant implications to the nations ability to support its current level of spending. Simply arguing that it will be fine cause we won't be sponging anymore is not really an examination of the implications and it will be interesting to see if any serious attempt is made this time around to quantify what those might be.

I am absolutely not saying that. What I am saying is that those who argue that everything will be fine staying in the Union with a disastrous fiscal position are kidding themselves because the rest of the UK will not tolerate it forever.

[JeMeSouviens]

Fair enough although the effects of the transfers are exactly the same.

I must have missed the SNP stating that an IScotland would be transitioning to its own currency as part of Indy...sounds a complicated and rather dangerous path (although I'm not disagreeing with it per se)

As this discussion has shown the route to Independence is a rather torturous one and one that could have very significant implications to the nations ability to support its current level of spending. Simply arguing that it will be fine cause we won't be sponging anymore is not really an examination of the implications and it will be interesting to see if any serious attempt is made this time around to quantify what those might be.

Yes, I'm jumping ahead a lot and filling in the blanks but an agreed sterling zone is now a political non-starter. The euro is not an option unless/until we've had our own currency for 2 years anyway and has its own drawbacks (as you've outlined). Our own currency seems the sensible way forward although not without complications as you say.

[RyeSloan]

I am absolutely not saying that. What I am saying is that those who argue that everything will be fine staying in the Union with a disastrous fiscal position are kidding themselves because the rest of the UK will not tolerate it forever.

I don't disagree but asking if someone is happy sponging compared to supporting Indy is not what you have said here...anyway I get yer point, things will change so we may as well change them big time [emoji6]

[RyeSloan]

Yes, I'm jumping ahead a lot and filling in the blanks but an agreed sterling zone is now a political non-starter. The euro is not an option unless/until we've had our own currency for 2 years anyway and has its own drawbacks (as you've outlined). Our own currency seems the sensible way forward although not without complications as you say.

Agreed it probably is the only viable option, I said the last time around that I might have supported Indy if it was a full fat version including our own currency.

The fact is though that such a route is a perilous one and it may take a generation for the benefits to come through..in my option the impact would be hugely more wide spread than Brexit for example.

I'm convinced that the SNP and a lot of Indy supporters are in denial about that and simply won't address the question nor attempt to spell out the risks as they know the electorate would not stomach it.

[ronaldo7]

I'm not sure what you're asking here, but I'll give it a bash anyway.

Situation:

GERS is produced and published by the Scottish Government annually
GERS addresses three questions - 1) What revenues were raised in Scotland? 2) How much did the country pay for the public services that were consumed? and 3) To what extent did the revenues raised cover the costs of these public services?
GERS reports only on public sector revenue and expenditure, not the entire Scottish economy*
GERS reports on all income received by the Scottish public sector
GERS is produced independently of Scottish Ministers and has been assessed by the UK Statistics Authority as being produced in line with the Code of Practice for Official Statistics e.g. sound methodology
GERS aims to capture all spending that benefits the residents of Scotland. This means it assigns Scotland a share of some expenditure which takes place outside Scotland**
GERS does not assign to Scotland expenditure which occurs in Scotland but benefits non-Scottish residents


Complication:

Under current UK budgetary accounting procedures, separate figures for Scotland are not available for most revenues, and are therefore estimated by considering each revenue stream separately. Where Scottish data is unavailable, GERS estimates revenue using methodologies refined over a number of years following consultation with and feedback.
Public sector expenditure is estimated on the basis of spending incurred for the benefit of Scottish residents. A particular public sector expenditure is apportioned to Scotland if the benefit of the expenditure is thought to accrue to Scottish residents.
The spending priorities of an independent Scottish government are unknown ***


Conclusion:

GERS reflects the current level of income of the Scottish public sector
GERS reflects the current level of expenditure that is made for the benefit of the Scottish population.
Since GERS reflects current level of income and expenditure, GERS is an entirely relevant starting point for consideration of the fiscal position of the Scottish public sector in an independent Scotland


Anyhow, with your question answered, are you now going to tell me how much extra tax are you are prepared to levy on the population of Scotland for the privilege of being a citizen of an independent Scotland??


Thanks for the copy and paste, I like a few of those myself:greengrin

Mair holes than a Swiss cheese.

* Why doesn't the figures take all of the Economy into consideration?
**What's this expenditure we're paying for which is taking place outside Scotland?
*** Exactly the point people are making, the Gers figures do not have any bearing on how an Independent Scottish Government would operate.

As for how much extra "I'm" prepared to pay. Let's just say, I'd support an increase in taxes to support my new country get on it's feet.

Alternatively, we could roll along with the Tories in command, and our Food bank queue's getting longer.

We're not going to agree on the Gers figures bud. You think they're real, and I think they're cooked.

Take a look at this, and see what you make of it. https://t.co/25dU0LTEPk

[ronaldo7]

"And did I mention that the SNP Scottish Government were the most trusted in the EU."

You mentioned it, but it seems not to be true, I'm afraid! The 2015 poll did not compare like governments in the EU as you insinuate, it only asked how many people were pleased with the Scottish government (73%) and the only other reference point used was the UK government (23%). (So it seems you really didn't get any further than England as I surmised! :greengrin)
Your claim about the Scottish government being the "most trusted in the EU" appears therefore to be a completely made up one (unless you are referring to another survey that I have been unable as yet to locate, which is of course perfectly possible)! :confused:

http://www.gov.scot/Publications/2016/03/5843/3

BTW - my reference to the status of the Scottish government is entirely pertinent in light of the fact that you seem to be claiming something on its behalf that does not appear to stand up to any scrutiny (unless I am missing something?)

http://www.oecd.org/gov/trust-in-government.htm

It looks like the Germans do indeed like their government. :greengrin

[hibs0666]

Thanks for the copy and paste, I like a few of those myself:greengrin

Mair holes than a Swiss cheese. Why are you so closed to an assessment of the economic implications of independence?

* Why doesn't the figures take all of the Economy into consideration? GERS analyses public sector income and expenditure only
**What's this expenditure we're paying for which is taking place outside Scotland? Includes areas such as defence
*** Exactly the point people are making, the Gers figures do not have any bearing on how an Independent Scottish Government would operate. Of course they do - this is the starting point from which an independent government would pick up.

As for how much extra "I'm" prepared to pay. Let's just say, I'd support an increase in taxes to support my new country get on it's feet. That's about £10 billion in extra taxes then if we were to aim for a deficit worth 3% of GDP. This works out to about £4000 for every Scottish worker if expenditure was to stay the same. Alternatively, you could just cut expenditure by £5 billion and raise taxes by only £2000 per worker instead.

Alternatively, we could roll along with the Tories in command, and our Food bank queue's getting longer. Very laudible objective, it's just a question of funding. Scotland's expenditure on social care is £24 billion annually, with health expenditure running at an additional £12 billion. How much extra is needed to eliminate food banks? Can it be raised from reduced spending elsewhere (unlikely given the size of the deficit we are running)? What additional cuts should be made to fund this objective?

We're not going to agree on the Gers figures bud. You think they're real, and I think they're cooked. That's fine, but ignorance of the 'true' picture is not an acceptable foundation upon which to pursue independence.

Take a look at this, and see what you make of it. https://t.co/25dU0LTEPk GERS already includes the value of oil and gas extraction to the Government. Scottish Import-export balances should be quoted based on the including of oil and gas as it gives the most accurate representation of the current position.

[ronaldo7]

GERS already includes the value of oil and gas extraction to the Government. Scottish Import-export balances should be quoted based on the including of oil and gas as it gives the most accurate representation of the current position.

It's getting silly now.

As I said, we're not going to agree on the Gers figures, as you think they're fullproof, and I thing they're Fool Proof.:wink:

The UK gov have been asked to open the books so we can see the true reflection of our debt, and of course our Assets (currently running into the £100B), but they've failed to do so. I wonder why.

If you've found that £37Billion you could maybe give the Scottish office a call. They seem to have mislaid it.

Over and out. Brexit's where it's at.

You can continue to have a pop at the Scottish Government, and what it stands for, meanwhile we'll just get on with looking after the people of Scotland in the face of your opposition.

https://t.co/1NifPCQYZf

[Moulin Yarns]

In other news, this might be interesting reading.


http://allofusfirst.org/tasks/render/file/?fileID=87DEEC95-C459-02D4-0248DDE75B7ADDB9



The Scottish independence debate has been ill served by the focus up till now on GERS alone as an indication and predictor of the finances of an independent Scotland. After the considerations resulting from any transition period are taken in to account, there is clearly much that would change as a result of the decision to become an independent country. These changes would have a significant impact on the budget and financing of Scotland even before the potential opportunities afforded by the reclamation of various reserved policies can be enacted upon.

This paper is not intended to be the final word on this subject and all invitations to improve the work by better identifying and locating currently "non-identifiable" spending are extended and encouraged. But what it has shown is that even using modest fiscal multiplier estimates as well as very conservative estimates regarding the impact of closing the tax gap as well as reduced debt interest repayments through prudent restructuring, Scotland's deficit can be reduced by several billion pounds per year. It is possible that simply the act of independence could bring Scotland's fiscal situation to "deficit parity" with the UK, as long as the establishment of new Scottish state institutions is done with competence and prudence. That this situation can be brought about even without a discussion about increasing tax revenue as a percentage of GDP or by relying on revenues from volatile and diminishing resources such as oil, shows the fundamental economic strength in which Scotland would begin life as a new country.



Someone with a better understanding than me should manage to bottom out the figures.

[Beefster]

I could be wrong but I thought that GERS used to be cited in the argument for independence?

Changed days, if so.

[One Day Soon]

In other news, this might be interesting reading.


http://allofusfirst.org/tasks/render/file/?fileID=87DEEC95-C459-02D4-0248DDE75B7ADDB9


Someone with a better understanding than me should manage to bottom out the figures.



I can help you. It's laughable pi5h. The sort that you resort to in desperation when your own SNP Government's GERS figures leave you with a £15bn deficit.

[JeMeSouviens]

I could be wrong but I thought that GERS used to be cited in the argument for independence?

Changed days, if so.

lolz :greengrin

It's quite funny really. GERS was a Tory invention to frighten us off devolution, never mind indy. Then when the SNP came in in 2007 there was a coincidental oil price spike that led them to believe they should keep publishing. Not their smartest move it turned out. :wink:

[Just Alf]

I can help you. It's laughable pi5h. The sort that you resort to in desperation when your own SNP Government's GERS figures leave you with a £15bn deficit.
It's up for.discussion but certainly not "laughable pi5h"

Take defence, if we structure ourselves like the majority of other EU countries then there's a £1 billion saving right there

At risk.of repeating myself on oil, yes it is included in GERS but based on Perth/Dundee being the sea border, this has been acknowledged to be against international law so the border would revert to its original location. And I KNOW the.current price of oil.is.a whole.other argument.

So that's just 2 issues that will help move the dial on those current GERS numbers.



Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk