Tories are lying *******s (warning may contain traces of Tory)

[JeMeSouviens]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

That's odd because the bit you quoted was 'our people' not 'impoverish'. Maybe you were trying to imply something else about our people. Who knows?

You should probably read the Growth Commission report which straight up admits the structural deficit is real, meaning independence puts us in the position of cutting public services or raising taxes dramatically - or both - just to stand still. It deals with Scotland's position because we're not Norway. This isn't No propaganda, its a report written by the SNP's own former parliamentary finance spokesman.

I was highly entertained by the former SNP members on twitter sharing the emails they had received from SNP HQ immediately after the stunt, asking them to rejoin the Party. Including those who, under GDPR, almost certainly should not have been on any list or be receiving any emails. It was an amazing coincidence that the spontaneous walk out by the SNP was accompanied by a well co-ordinated request to lapsed and resigned members to rejoin. What are the odds on that?

You appear to be confusing me with someone who supports the current version of Labour or indeed Corbyn. That would be hilariously inaccurate. And as I've posted previously he has something like 500,000 members and it's doing him **** all good - good luck with the 'extra' 5000 odd.

Not true actually. The GC recommendation is to increase public spending by 0.5% below the growth rate. The IFS commentary on this assumed a growth rate of 1.5% and therefore an annual increase of 1%. Obv other growth rates are possible in either direction.

As I see it the likely choices are a decade of something like or not much better than austerity followed by at least some hope of improvement or a decade of something like or not much better than austerity followed by near certain ongoing decline.

[JeMeSouviens]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Lord Sewel himself has came out and supported the U.K. government approach on this, clearly stating that the return of powers under Brexit was not a consideration or foreseen when the wording was written. He then goes on to state that that this would be considered an extraordinary event that the ‘not normally’ phrase would apply to and that in this circumstance he sees it perfectly reasonable for the U.K. to retain some of the powers.

So we now have one side arguing that the Sewel convention is being ‘torn up’ when Sewel himself is saying that’s simply not the case.

Amazing! A Labour Unionist supports the Unionist position. Who'd have thought that?

What is genuinely surprising, I think, is that several Scots Labour and Lib MPs backed the SNP last night at Westminster and Labs and Libs backed the SNP at Holyrood. Given that it obviously plays to the SNP's strategic political objective, then just maybe their support tells you there is something to the issue after all?

[RyeSloan]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Amazing! A Labour Unionist supports the Unionist position. Who'd have thought that?

What is genuinely surprising, I think, is that several Scots Labour and Lib MPs backed the SNP last night at Westminster and Labs and Libs backed the SNP at Holyrood. Given that it obviously plays to the SNP's strategic political objective, then just maybe their support tells you there is something to the issue after all?

Wow so maybe we should just ignore his convention completely then as it was written by a Unionist in the first place?

Considering it was his drafting that is being used as the justification of the ‘power grab’ position then to just ignore his clarification of what was written and why and how it should be interpreted in this circumstance simply because he is a ‘Labour Unionist’ kind of sums it up really.

[JeMeSouviens]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Wow so maybe we should just ignore his convention completely then as it was written by a Unionist in the first place?

Considering it was his drafting that is being used as the justification of the ‘power grab’ position then to just ignore his clarification of what was written and why and how it should be interpreted in this circumstance simply because he is a ‘Labour Unionist’ kind of sums it up really.

I don't think anyone is under any illusion about where power rests in the UK. Even if Sewel's "convention" gave Scot gov a cast iron legal case, Westminster could legislate to remove it no problem. In fact, the Scotland Acts, the existence of Holyrood etc. can all be repealed any time they like. As I'm sure you know.

Whether it would be right and/or politically acceptable is another matter. Ultimately the electorate get to decide that.

[RyeSloan]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I don't think anyone is under any illusion about where power rests in the UK. Even if Sewel's "convention" gave Scot gov a cast iron legal case, Westminster could legislate to remove it no problem. In fact, the Scotland Acts, the existence of Holyrood etc. can all be repealed any time they like. As I'm sure you know.

Whether it would be right and/or politically acceptable is another matter. Ultimately the electorate get to decide that.

Quality R7 stylee deflection there JMS!

[JeMeSouviens]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Quality R7 stylee deflection there JMS!

Hey! My deflection style's all my own, thanks very much.

[JeMeSouviens]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Wow so maybe we should just ignore his convention completely then as it was written by a Unionist in the first place?

Considering it was his drafting that is being used as the justification of the ‘power grab’ position then to just ignore his clarification of what was written and why and how it should be interpreted in this circumstance simply because he is a ‘Labour Unionist’ kind of sums it up really.

Actually it wasn't written anyway, it was spoken by Sewel during the debates on the original 1998 Scotland Act.

https://devolutionmatters.wordpress....el-convention/

Following the recommendation of the Smith Commission in 2016, it was written in to the 2016 Scotland Act but (as decided by the Supreme Court in the Gina Miller Brexit case) in such a way that it can effectively be ignored.

So my deflection was in fact, on top of your obfuscation.

[RyeSloan]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Actually it wasn't written anyway, it was spoken by Sewel during the debates on the original 1998 Scotland Act.

https://devolutionmatters.wordpress....el-convention/

Following the recommendation of the Smith Commission in 2016, it was written in to the 2016 Scotland Act but (as decided by the Supreme Court in the Gina Miller Brexit case) in such a way that it can effectively be ignored.

So my deflection was in fact, on top of your obfuscation.

Ha ha I could take umbrage at your accusation of obfuscation but as it’s a word I particularly like I’ll let ya off

[ronaldo7]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

That's odd because the bit you quoted was 'our people' not 'impoverish'. Maybe you were trying to imply something else about our people. Who knows?

You should probably read the Growth Commission report which straight up admits the structural deficit is real, meaning independence puts us in the position of cutting public services or raising taxes dramatically - or both - just to stand still. It deals with Scotland's position because we're not Norway. This isn't No propaganda, its a report written by the SNP's own former parliamentary finance spokesman.

I was highly entertained by the former SNP members on twitter sharing the emails they had received from SNP HQ immediately after the stunt, asking them to rejoin the Party. Including those who, under GDPR, almost certainly should not have been on any list or be receiving any emails. It was an amazing coincidence that the spontaneous walk out by the SNP was accompanied by a well co-ordinated request to lapsed and resigned members to rejoin. What are the odds on that?

You appear to be confusing me with someone who supports the current version of Labour or indeed Corbyn. That would be hilariously inaccurate. And as I've posted previously he has something like 500,000 members and it's doing him **** all good - good luck with the 'extra' 5000 odd.

Oh dear, the thread title it's very apt for this post. That's twice in a week, you've been found out. Firstly with the order paper, and now your growth Commission misrepresentation.

The 5,000 odd is approaching 10k now. I'm sure you'll be delighted.

You might find it on your Twitter feed. 🎯

I'll just put it down to your over exuberance

[G B Young]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

It doesn't explain it at all, it just recycles Tory propaganda (unsurprisingly since Daisley is a Tory).

The "powers handed back to Brussels"* line is a complete red herring unless/until there's a 2nd indyref and we win. In the meantime, the powers are not going to be with the EU, they can only be exercised by Holyrood or Westminster and, as I've said so many times now it's making my keyboard upset, both sides agree that UK frameworks in some areas make sense, the issue is whether they are agreed or imposed.


* and even then, they would be exercised by agreement among EU member states, not by imposition from "Brussels".

Is it really propaganda? To me it's simply the way the UK Government has interpreted an admittedly tricky issue (one of countless others they find themselves mired in as they attempt to find a safe passage through the Brexit swamp). It's no more propaganda than the way the SNP have seized on the issue and shaped it to promote their latest bid for another referendum.

This is what does my head in about politics, especially in more recent times and an age of what is apparently termed identity politics. There's little in the way of debate, simply a culture of insult based around whichever tribe you are aligned to.

[snooky]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Is it really propaganda? To me it's simply the way the UK Government has interpreted an admittedly tricky issue (one of countless others they find themselves mired in as they attempt to find a safe passage through the Brexit swamp). It's no more propaganda than the way the SNP have seized on the issue and shaped it to promote their latest bid for another referendum.

This is what does my head in about politics, especially in more recent times and an age of what is apparently termed identity politics. There's little in the way of debate, simply a culture of insult based around whichever tribe you are aligned to.

Time to wipe the slate and begin again. I would agree to that. Get shot of the lot and put in people with some integrity and honesty.
Aye, dream on, snooky.

[JeMeSouviens]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Is it really propaganda? To me it's simply the way the UK Government has interpreted an admittedly tricky issue (one of countless others they find themselves mired in as they attempt to find a safe passage through the Brexit swamp). It's no more propaganda than the way the SNP have seized on the issue and shaped it to promote their latest bid for another referendum.

This is what does my head in about politics, especially in more recent times and an age of what is apparently termed identity politics. There's little in the way of debate, simply a culture of insult based around whichever tribe you are aligned to.

All sides spin furiously, that's a given. However. if you scroll back to the OP of this thread, independent fact checking says the SNP & Lab at least broadly base their utterances on the truth whereas the Tories are happy to flat out lie.

[One Day Soon]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Oh dear, the thread title it's very apt for this post. That's twice in a week, you've been found out. Firstly with the order paper, and now your growth Commission misrepresentation.

The 5,000 odd is approaching 10k now. I'm sure you'll be delighted.

You might find it on your Twitter feed. 🎯

I'll just put it down to your over exuberance

'order paper'?

[One Day Soon]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

That's odd because the bit you quoted was 'our people' not 'impoverish'. Maybe you were trying to imply something else about our people. Who knows?

You should probably read the Growth Commission report which straight up admits the structural deficit is real, meaning independence puts us in the position of cutting public services or raising taxes dramatically - or both - just to stand still. It deals with Scotland's position because we're not Norway. This isn't No propaganda, its a report written by the SNP's own former parliamentary finance spokesman.

I was highly entertained by the former SNP members on twitter sharing the emails they had received from SNP HQ immediately after the stunt, asking them to rejoin the Party. Including those who, under GDPR, almost certainly should not have been on any list or be receiving any emails. It was an amazing coincidence that the spontaneous walk out by the SNP was accompanied by a well co-ordinated request to lapsed and resigned members to rejoin. What are the odds on that?

You appear to be confusing me with someone who supports the current version of Labour or indeed Corbyn. That would be hilariously inaccurate. And as I've posted previously he has something like 500,000 members and it's doing him **** all good - good luck with the 'extra' 5000 odd.

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Not true actually. The GC recommendation is to increase public spending by 0.5% below the growth rate. The IFS commentary on this assumed a growth rate of 1.5% and therefore an annual increase of 1%. Obv other growth rates are possible in either direction.

As I see it the likely choices are a decade of something like or not much better than austerity followed by at least some hope of improvement or a decade of something like or not much better than austerity followed by near certain ongoing decline.

Where are you getting this from JMS because I cannot see anywhere where the IFS is endorsing that the GC's assumed growth rate is correct?


What I can see is a large structural deficit that requires to be closed and the only way of doing that is to cut spending and raise taxes - unless Scottish growth is transformed out of all recognition.


There are several problems with what Andrew Wilson has announced in the GC.


Firstly, increasing public spending by 0.5% in the wider context is exactly the same as the austerity we have been enduring - for another ten years. A ten year period incidentally in which UK public spending is set to rise by 0.7% - so we would have lower increases in public spending than the rest of the UK for ten years just to get back to where we are now.


Secondly, his assumption of 1.5% growth is just wrong. During the last ten years Scotland has had an annual average growth rate of 0.8%. Even the Scottish Fiscal Commission (which is directly accountable to the Scottish Parliament) is only expecting 0.9% by 2023. So if his plan is to take ten years to reduce the deficit to a manageable 3% of GDP by increasing public spending by a rate lower than the rate of growth in the Scottish economy we are completely stuffed if that growth rate is way lower than he is assuming. And that brings us back to spending cuts or tax rises - or both - as the only way to fill the gap.


But even beyond these figures the Growth Commission also assumes that the size of the deficit to be closed starts at a certain level if you stop some current spending altogether on the basis that you don't need it after leaving the UK. What the IFS describes as "some assumed but unspecified efficiency savings". There's plenty of that in the GC and its's mostly heroic assumptions in small amounts which collectively add up to quite a bit of the structural deficit being wished away - BEFORE you even begin to look at how you then bridge the remaining gap.


The IFS in fact says:


"An annual budget deficit of 5.9% of GDP would simply not be sustainable on an ongoing basis. One can debate the timing of the reduction – perhaps delaying a couple of years, or going a little slower. One could choose to make some of the adjustment by increasing taxes rather than just holding down spending. But such a large deficit would need to be tackled to avoid ballooning debt and interest payments and a loss of confidence and credibility, which would be particularly damaging to a newly independent small country.


In fact, a case could be made for going further and/or faster. A deficit of almost 2.6% of GDP might be sustainable for a large country with good growth and a long track record of borrowing on international markets. For a new and relatively small country it may not. The Commission rightly highlights how smaller countries typically run smaller deficits or even surpluses: seven of the twelve small developed countries cited in the Commission’s report ran budget surpluses in 2016. Completely eliminating Scotland’s forecast deficit over 10 years would require real-terms cuts to spending of around 0.2% a year. Or it would take around 8 more years of holding down spending growth to 0.5% a year, on top of the 10 years envisioned by the Commission. In other words, even further austerity."
and


"The main reason economists expect an economic hit from leaving the EU is the bigger trade barriers that will exist, especially if the UK is outside the EU’s single market and customs union. But if Scotland left the UK and rejoined the EU that could instead mean additional trade barriers between Scotland and the rest of the UK, with which Scotland currently trades four times as much with as with the EU. The Commission’s figures make no allowance for any negative economic impact from such barriers. They could quite easily outweigh the gains from rejoining the EU."

[JeMeSouviens]

https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/13072

To reduce the 5.9% deficit, the Commission proposes that total public expenditure (excluding debt interest) should increase by 1% less per year than GDP for the first decade of independence. With assumed real GDP growth of 1.5% a year, that means holding down real growth in spending on public services and benefits to 0.5% a year.

Note "holding down real growth in spending" is not cutting spending.

You are right, however, that if there is no growth in the economy, then spending cannot be increased by (growth - 1%).

I'm certainly not underestimating the difficulty and I'd accept that Scotland's fiscal position might well be worse over the first decade, especially if they stick to the imo sensible plan to keep oil revenue separate.

However, the alternative is hitching yourself to Brexit Britain and hoping they don't recalculate Barnett. Good luck with that.

[One Day Soon]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/13072



Note "holding down real growth in spending" is not cutting spending.

You are right, however, that if there is no growth in the economy, then spending cannot be increased by (growth - 1%).

I'm certainly not underestimating the difficulty and I'd accept that Scotland's fiscal position might well be worse over the first decade, especially if they stick to the imo sensible plan to keep oil revenue separate.

However, the alternative is hitching yourself to Brexit Britain and hoping they don't recalculate Barnett. Good luck with that.

That doesn't show the IFS commentary assuming a Scottish growth rate of 1.5%, it shows the IFS commentary quoting the Growth Commission's own assumption of a growth rate of 1.5%.

Saying that "holding down real growth in spending" is not cutting spending is just fine as long as you are comfortable with the levels of spending which has been described as austerity in past years.

As the IFS point out in the quote I used, the implications of dealing with Brexit Britain by adopting UKexit Scotland - with all the implications that has of taking us out of our biggest trade market (the UK) - is pretty ropey to say the least.

The Barnett Formula has endured for 40 years and I don't see why we would assume that it or a successor won't continue to deliver for us.

[JeMeSouviens]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

That doesn't show the IFS commentary assuming a Scottish growth rate of 1.5%, it shows the IFS commentary quoting the Growth Commission's own assumption of a growth rate of 1.5%.

Saying that "holding down real growth in spending" is not cutting spending is just fine as long as you are comfortable with the levels of spending which has been described as austerity in past years.

As the IFS point out in the quote I used, the implications of dealing with Brexit Britain by adopting UKexit Scotland - with all the implications that has of taking us out of our biggest trade market (the UK) - is pretty ropey to say the least.

The Barnett Formula has endured for 40 years and I don't see why we would assume that it or a successor won't continue to deliver for us.

Not true:

"the UK government did reduce total public spending by an average of 0.2% a year in real-terms between 2009–10 and 2016–17"

"Between 2016–17 and 2022–23, total public spending excluding debt interest payments is forecast to grow by an average of 0.7% a year in real-terms. "

I have to be comfortable with more or less of a continuation of the anaemic public spending growth forecast for the UK. I'm not comfortable with that but willing to accept it as the price for some hope for our future. I see nothing but long term decline for the UK. Brexit is Suez without the guns.

[RyeSloan]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

That doesn't show the IFS commentary assuming a Scottish growth rate of 1.5%, it shows the IFS commentary quoting the Growth Commission's own assumption of a growth rate of 1.5%.

Saying that "holding down real growth in spending" is not cutting spending is just fine as long as you are comfortable with the levels of spending which has been described as austerity in past years.

As the IFS point out in the quote I used, the implications of dealing with Brexit Britain by adopting UKexit Scotland - with all the implications that has of taking us out of our biggest trade market (the UK) - is pretty ropey to say the least.

The Barnett Formula has endured for 40 years and I don't see why we would assume that it or a successor won't continue to deliver for us.

The main problem here is the SNP have battered the U.K. government about ‘austerity’ for the last decade and now their flagship paper on post Indy Scotland proposes the same ‘austerity’ and with a genuine risk of real austerity being required.

It’s not a message that will sell and promises of grand visions on how a Scottish Government would magically come up with growth policies already ring hollow considering the inept performance of such growth policies that have been trumpeted and failed already in the last 10 years.

So we shall see what ends up being the SNP policy on this come Autumn once they have had a chance to chew over this conundrum but I fail to see how they can get around the rather painful truth...even the happy path of an Indy Scotland would have a very difficult adjustment period that could last a decade or more and would be fraught with risk, the unhappy path would hardly bear thinking about.

To a lot of people Indy has never felt worth it in terms of the above and the GC really just underlined that they were right to think so. Its difficult so see how that assessment can change anytime soon.

Brexit may be a factor in that happening but as regular readers will know I’m far from convinced that Brexit will have any lasting long term negative economic impact anyway so for me I’m not seeing that as a catalyst for Indy no matter how much Nicola would like it to be.

[JeMeSouviens]

On Barnett. I may be in a minority of one and may be plain wrong but my firm belief is that it will be scrapped as soon as (if) the threat of Scottish independence has receded to a level the UK establishment is comfortable with.

As an illustration ...

David Cameron 2010:

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/w...ormula-1924151

David Cameron 2014:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...n-9872879.html


And apart from anything else, if you are of the Mibbes Aye position that Scotland is not and should not be a country in its own right then, given the inevitable zero sum of spending across the UK, why are you not campaigning for something that is directly disadvantaging British citizens in some parts of the UK to the benefit of others to be scrapped?

I would rather Scotland stood on its own feet.

[Mibbes Aye]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

On Barnett. I may be in a minority of one and may be plain wrong but my firm belief is that it will be scrapped as soon as (if) the threat of Scottish independence has receded to a level the UK establishment is comfortable with.

As an illustration ...

David Cameron 2010:

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/w...ormula-1924151

David Cameron 2014:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...n-9872879.html


And apart from anything else, if you are of the Mibbes Aye position that Scotland is not and should not be a country in its own right then, given the inevitable zero sum of spending across the UK, why are you not campaigning for something that is directly disadvantaging British citizens in some parts of the UK to the benefit of others to be scrapped?

I would rather Scotland stood on its own feet.

A minor quibble first. I think my position is that I think nationalism is regressive and don't believe we should welcome it any more than we already have to put up with.

The point you make about spending is, I think, a different argument because it applies at any scale.

If you take health spending in Scotland (...'ahem, a devolved matter, m'lud'), NHS Lothian will vehemently argue and have done publicly for years, that they receive an unfair allocation of resource which other parts of the country disproportionately benefit from.

Go down a level. People in Caithness will argue vehemently that they receive an unfair allocation of resource and that other parts of NHS Highland, Inverness especially are treated more favourably.

Or you can go in the other direction. The EU budget has net gainers and net losers in terms of resource. Always has had.

Whichever level of resource allocation you want to go to, you will find differences that usually aggrieve someone. The differences may be for political or economic reasons, they may be pragmatic or dogmatic and they're often complicated and complex. That's just the nature of how government, at whatever level, allocates resource.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

On Barnett. I may be in a minority of one and may be plain wrong but my firm belief is that it will be scrapped as soon as (if) the threat of Scottish independence has receded to a level the UK establishment is comfortable with.

As an illustration ...

David Cameron 2010:

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/w...ormula-1924151

David Cameron 2014:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...n-9872879.html


And apart from anything else, if you are of the Mibbes Aye position that Scotland is not and should not be a country in its own right then, given the inevitable zero sum of spending across the UK, why are you not campaigning for something that is directly disadvantaging British citizens in some parts of the UK to the benefit of others to be scrapped?

I would rather Scotland stood on its own feet.

Fwiw, I've enjoyed the discussion between the three of you above.

It really does get to the nub of the argument for me, which when shorn of ideology and romantic nationalism (either Scottish or British) really does come down to what will each option cost, and what are the risks.

Unfortunately at the moment the benefit of doubt from that question leads most people to opt for the UK- better the devil you know, if you like.

However if Brexit is a disaster, that could tilt the balance, but I think it would have to be pretty bad to get a majority effectively willing to throw their wealth and their children's futures into what is, ultimately a big gamble.

[JeMeSouviens]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

A minor quibble first. I think my position is that I think nationalism is regressive and don't believe we should welcome it any more than we already have to put up with.

On the quibble, one of the reasons I don't like being part of the UK is the strong strain of imperialistic, exceptionalist British nationalism that runs through it. In Scotland as well as rUK btw, where it manifests itself through the various incarnations of Rangers. This is particularly sair to bear because one of its strongest redoubts is the ****** Tories that habitually make up the UK government! While I concede that a similar strain of exceptionalism runs through Scottish nationalism, I think it is less and less prevalent as the years go by to the point it's no longer the mainstream view in the indy movement and that an independent Scotland would hasten its demise because we'd be forced to sort out own house out rather than blaming the absentee toffs down the road.

The point you make about spending is, I think, a different argument because it applies at any scale.

If you take health spending in Scotland (...'ahem, a devolved matter, m'lud'), NHS Lothian will vehemently argue and have done publicly for years, that they receive an unfair allocation of resource which other parts of the country disproportionately benefit from.

Go down a level. People in Caithness will argue vehemently that they receive an unfair allocation of resource and that other parts of NHS Highland, Inverness especially are treated more favourably.

Or you can go in the other direction. The EU budget has net gainers and net losers in terms of resource. Always has had.

Whichever level of resource allocation you want to go to, you will find differences that usually aggrieve someone. The differences may be for political or economic reasons, they may be pragmatic or dogmatic and they're often complicated and complex. That's just the nature of how government, at whatever level, allocates resource.

Back to Barnett. Your argument seems to be that 453 wrongs might make a right? I'm not buying that in this case because:

1. We know exactly how Barnett works, it is a simple formula, nothing complex.
2. We know exactly how inequitable it now is (because of 1) and how it has become so. The arguments of those aggrieved by it are unanswerable.

[JeMeSouviens]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Fwiw, I've enjoyed the discussion between the three of you above.

It really does get to the nub of the argument for me, which when shorn of ideology and romantic nationalism (either Scottish or British) really does come down to what will each option cost, and what are the risks.

Unfortunately at the moment the benefit of doubt from that question leads most people to opt for the UK- better the devil you know, if you like.

However if Brexit is a disaster, that could tilt the balance, but I think it would have to be pretty bad to get a majority effectively willing to throw their wealth and their children's futures into what is, ultimately a big gamble.

The problem with the devil you know is that when you vote it might be a devil in the EU but choose to leave it shortly afterwards. It might be a devil who is happy to disproportionately fund your public spending but reassess things down the line ...

I guess the long term good thing about Brexit is that the strategic advantage of being in the EU while rUK is out is likely to be on the table for a long time. Unlike oil, for instance, which would still be of benefit if we were quick, but has largely passed us by.

I think you are probably right that we will reject the gamble but I also think we'll regret it down the line. To be honest, as I've said before, I'd happily give up Indy in the short term for Brexit to fail and the whole UK to remain.

[Mibbes Aye]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Your argument seems to be that 453 wrongs might make a right? I'm not buying that in this case

I'm saying no such thing but I also am not sure if you understand the complexity of what's involved in public finance.

To go back to the example of health finance in Scotland, there is a formula, commonly referred to as NRAC, which seeks to allocate monies to the various health boards around the country.

It is complicated and incredibly detailed and is calculated by very talented statisticians, using reams of data about population, demographics, relative health profiles (e.g. Shettleston is unhealthier than Morningside for a number of reasons, but affluent areas where people live into older age for longer also brings pressures e.g. people who are in reasonable physical health but living with dementia for longer) and broader issues, like how resourcing health services in Edinburgh looks and costs differently than it does in Argyll and Bute, because of the rurality and remoteness involved.

All this, to come up with a funding formula that is fair, equitable and meets the needs of those it applies to. And despite it being a carefully-planned industry in its own right, it will never be perfect because it is an attempt to systemise something that is complex and chaotic (in the pure sense) by nature.

You are hypothesizing about Barnett being changed. The point I'm making is that it doesn't matter if it is or it isn't - the complexity of public sector finances, most especially around health, is that it is almost always going to be a game of 'Whack-a-mole'.

That's not accepting wrongs make a right, that's acknowledging that we have to work in an adaptive manner, where priorities shift and resources follow in sadly a rather reactive fashion.

[RyeSloan]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

. To be honest, as I've said before, I'd happily give up Indy in the short term for Brexit to fail and the whole UK to remain.

Im not sure I get that? You would happily not see Indy as long as Brexit brings economic misery and the U.K. remains intact? Is that so you can come on here and repeatedly tell me ‘“I told you so” as I can’t see any other benefit to anyone for such a stance?

[JeMeSouviens]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Im not sure I get that? You would happily not see Indy as long as Brexit brings economic misery and the U.K. remains intact? Is that so you can come on here and repeatedly tell me ‘“I told you so” as I can’t see any other benefit to anyone for such a stance?

No, fail as in the UK remains in the EU.

[JeMeSouviens]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I'm saying no such thing but I also am not sure if you understand the complexity of what's involved in public finance.

To go back to the example of health finance in Scotland, there is a formula, commonly referred to as NRAC, which seeks to allocate monies to the various health boards around the country.

It is complicated and incredibly detailed and is calculated by very talented statisticians, using reams of data about population, demographics, relative health profiles (e.g. Shettleston is unhealthier than Morningside for a number of reasons, but affluent areas where people live into older age for longer also brings pressures e.g. people who are in reasonable physical health but living with dementia for longer) and broader issues, like how resourcing health services in Edinburgh looks and costs differently than it does in Argyll and Bute, because of the rurality and remoteness involved.

All this, to come up with a funding formula that is fair, equitable and meets the needs of those it applies to. And despite it being a carefully-planned industry in its own right, it will never be perfect because it is an attempt to systemise something that is complex and chaotic (in the pure sense) by nature.

You are hypothesizing about Barnett being changed. The point I'm making is that it doesn't matter if it is or it isn't - the complexity of public sector finances, most especially around health, is that it is almost always going to be a game of 'Whack-a-mole'.

That's not accepting wrongs make a right, that's acknowledging that we have to work in an adaptive manner, where priorities shift and resources follow in sadly a rather reactive fashion.

What I know about such things you could write on the back of a stamp in marker pen.

But, however difficult it may be to allocate fairly, I know that starting from multiplying using relative population sizes that are 40 years out of date is a no brainer to change.

[Mibbes Aye]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

What I know about such things you could write on the back of a stamp in marker pen.

But, however difficult it may be to allocate fairly, I know that starting from multiplying using relative population sizes that are 40 years out of date is a no brainer to change.

Yeah, it’s a wee bit like the council tax in that regard. I think the scale of the task in pressing the reset button is beyond the capacity of government, UK or Scottish, at the moment.

Which means we end up in a situation similar to that quote attributed to Churchill about democracy.

[RyeSloan]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

No, fail as in the UK remains in the EU.

Ha ha that makes a bit more sense now

[RyeSloan]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Yeah, it’s a wee bit like the council tax in that regard. I think the scale of the task in pressing the reset button is beyond the capacity of government, UK or Scottish, at the moment.

Which means we end up in a situation similar to that quote attributed to Churchill about democracy.

Surely there is plenty of data out there that can be mined to give a reasonably accurate picture without that much effort?

Is that not what the Office for National Statistics is there to do?

I know about as much as JMS on this specific topic but is the suggestion that the basic assumptions under pinning healthcare spending allocation are 40 years old?