Scottish independence: 820,000 Scots 'living in poverty'

IveSeenTheLight

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Try again....

Seems that Better Together were right about it after all.

Yes try reading the linked report from the LSE again

Executive Summary
An independent Scotland would face immediate set-up costs of up to £200 million in creating new
administrative structures that duplicate UK institutions, but could also streamline many public bodies.

the part about 1.5Billion reads here

Beyond that, the UK Treasury has cited a report based on Canadian studies that suggests a range of other
transition costs – from as little as £600 million at the low end (0.4 of 1 per cent of Scotland’s GDP), up to £1.5 billion (1% of Scottish GDP) at the high end. This is a very wide margin, and the study itself was of Quebec some years ago, and not of Scotland now.
The UK Treasury has also suggested that Scotland could face disentangling costs, IT and new administration costs in taxation and benefits of perhaps as much as £900 million.
But if anything like these amounts were to be incurred, it would be in a phased way by the Scottish government creating new and modernized IT and administrative systems that would endure for many years. They hence take on the character of investments, where future running cost savings would also be sought.

Scotland’s transition costs are also likely to be significantly offset by:
- some significant ‘streamlining’ savings initially;
- the elimination of many ‘legacy’ complexities (such as the very tangled back-office computer networks in UK tax and benefits systems);
- the generally easier process of managing a smaller government machine;
- some substantial policy savings in areas such as defence.

Once again, the conclusion reads

The long-run viability of an independent Scottish state is generally high.

CLAPTON

Given, the long run viability of almost every state in the world is high, it's not at all surprising that Scotland's is too.

The only countries without long term viability are those likely to be invaded by military conflict or civil war.

Scotland is lucky enough to have a very benevolent neighbour who it can rely on in times of trouble.

LydiaJ

tberry6686 wrote: »

Poverty in Scotland. Do the people who make up these reports actually know what poverty is ? And no it doesn't mean not having a brand new car or PS4.

I doubt if there are 5000 people in Scotland living in true poverty.

The report refers to "relative poverty". This usually means having an income of less than 60% of the median, adjusted for household size. As such, it is a measure of the inequality of a society, not of poverty in any absolute sense.

The numbers in relative poverty worsen either if the people at the bottom end get poorer, or if the people in the middle get better off while the people at the bottom stay the same. It's not affected by what happens to those in the top half of the income distribution.

tberry6686

LydiaJ wrote: »

The report refers to "relative poverty". This usually means having an income of less than 60% of the median, adjusted for household size. As such, it is a measure of the inequality of a society, not of poverty in any absolute sense.

The numbers in relative poverty worsen either if the people at the bottom end get poorer, or if the people in the middle get better off while the people at the bottom stay the same. It's not affected by what happens to those in the top half of the income distribution.

So not poverty at all then but another piece of headline grabbing rubbish from people who should know better

CLAPTON

one of the side effects of the financial meltdown was that average income fell.

this had the perverse effect of REDUCING relative poverty.

brilliant ...we can reduce inequality and poverty by all being poorer.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

CLAPTON wrote: »

brilliant ...we can reduce inequality and poverty by all being poorer.

That's probably the best one-line explanation of modern socialist thinking I've seen on this board.

Scarily, the SNP, Scottish Labour, etc, all subscribe to this theory.:eek:

BillJones

LydiaJ wrote: »

The report refers to "relative poverty". This usually means having an income of less than 60% of the median, adjusted for household size. As such, it is a measure of the inequality of a society, not of poverty in any absolute sense.

It's not even a very good method of that. You could lift millions out of this measure of "poverty" by taking 20% of the wages off the middle quintile and gifting it to the top 1%

The GINI coefficient is generally a better measure.

Generali

BillJones wrote: »

It's not even a very good method of that. You could lift millions out of this measure of "poverty" by taking 20% of the wages off the middle quintile and gifting it to the top 1%

The GINI coefficient is generally a better measure.

Spot on, unfortunately.

purch

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

So do most other voters....
Hence why 'No Thanks' is leading the polls by a wide margin.

What should be leading those "polls" is Don't Know................cos nobody does.

ruggedtoast

tberry6686 wrote: »

Poverty in Scotland. Do the people who make up these reports actually know what poverty is ? And no it doesn't mean not having a brand new car or PS4.

I doubt if there are 5000 people in Scotland living in true poverty.

Maybe PS4 poverty could be a new economic indicator.