Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

Generali

antrobus wrote: »

And of course, Brent Crude ain't $100 any more.:)

My very rough calculations show that the halving of the price of Brent Crude have led to a fall in Scottish GDP of perhaps 10%. Far cleverer people than I have estimated that Government revenues from North Sea oil have fallen by 80-90%.

An SNP in a coalition that insists on Scottish revenues for Scottish people might find itself to be deeply unpopular.

kabayiri

antrobus wrote: »

The 2012/13 bulletin said Scotland's deficit was about £12bn or 8.3% of economic output....This year's bulletin revises the 2012/13 deficit to 9.7% of economic output, compared with 7.2% for the UK.

But not to worry, those were only "technical revisions".

Scotland's deficit as a share of GDP fell from 9.7% in 2012/13 to 8.1% in 2013/14 but was higher than the United Kingdom average of 5.6%.

So it looks like a fairly consistent 2.5% 'fiscal gap' between Scotland and the UK, even with all that 'extra' oil money thrown into the mix. That's quite an additional slice of 'austerity' to have to swallow.

And of course, Brent Crude ain't $100 any more.:)

Well put.

Of course this backs up Hamish's assertion that Scotland is financially better off as part of the Union. He is right.

The case for austerity is all the more compelling with oil prices sub $100.

kabayiri

Generali wrote: »

My very rough calculations show that the halving of the price of Brent Crude have led to a fall in Scottish GDP of perhaps 10%. Far cleverer people than I have estimated that Government revenues from North Sea oil have fallen by 80-90%.

An SNP in a coalition that insists on Scottish revenues for Scottish people might find itself to be deeply unpopular.

It almost seems like a policy of 'beggar thy neighbour'.

That's a sure fire way of creating division within the union when we need cooperation on eliminating a massive deficit.

Generali

hakethedisease;67920037]Yes the Tories do seem to be making up ground. It's whether it will be enough or not. In 2010 Labour 29.7% and Conservatives 36.9% still wasn't enough to take the Tories over the line alone. No-one is denying that they may well get the most seats, it's how they make it past 323/6 that may be the problem.

If England is ready or not for anything else.. well am not sure what you think will actually happen if not ? Do tell ?

It IS that bad. There's been a concentrated effort over the last week of this sort of thing. And if even Ruth Davidson ( Tory Scotland leader ) is appaulled by it all things must be dire indeed. Iain McWhirter wrote the below before the Sun's double page spread. Oh look you may be an extremist..

http://www.heraldscotland.com/comment/columnists/a-general-election-campaign-that-is-turning-into-a-vile-witchhunt.120264319

The difference is that this time Labour is losing vast numbers of seats to the SNP but as it takes fewer votes to win a seat in Scotland than England they will lose a disproportionate number of seats vs votes lost.

I reckon that even on a parity of votes UK wide with the current SNP numbers in Scotland, the Tories would have the largest number of seats.

It's hard to make a legitimate case for the second largest party leader to be PM.

Shakethedisease

Generali wrote: »

The difference is that this time Labour is losing vast numbers of seats to the SNP but as it takes fewer votes to win a seat in Scotland than England they will lose a disproportionate number of seats vs votes lost.

I reckon that even on a parity of votes UK wide with the current SNP numbers in Scotland, the Tories would have the largest number of seats.

It's hard to make a legitimate case for the second largest party leader to be PM.

No that's not what I asked you. If Tories get most seats, but not enough to run a majority and not enough Lib Dems/UKIP to support.

What happens then ? Seat numbers aren't the issue. It's forming an actual Government which then becomes a rather pressing need.

The Tories are edging upwards in the polls and are now virtually tied with Labour but David Cameron still doesn’t have the numbers to stay at No 10

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/datablog/2015/mar/10/election-2015-the-polls-are-moving-the-overtaking-is-upon-us

You don't seem to be able to grasp that 'most number of seats' doesn't equal taking power.

O’Donnell says the Liberal Democrat leader, Nick Clegg, is constitutionally wrong to say that the leader of the largest party in the Commons should have the first chance to form a government. The former cabinet secretary, who drew up guidelines to govern Whitehall preparations for a hung parliament in the runup to the 2010 election, says the prime minister should be appointed on the basis that they can command the confidence of the House of Commons.

O’Donnnell said: “The one thing we need to be aware of is people thinking that what Nick Clegg said last time constituted an iron law that only the biggest party, somehow defined either by seats or votes, gets to have the first say. That is not true.”

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/mar/06/queen-to-miss-ve-day-anniversary-events-general-election-hung-parliament?CMP=share_btn_tw

So I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say ? Tories get most seats and then what ?

Shakethedisease

kabayiri wrote: »

It almost seems like a policy of 'beggar thy neighbour'.

That's a sure fire way of creating division within the union when we need cooperation on eliminating a massive deficit.

I don't think the Scots voters are buying it. We've already had 3 years worth of disaster economics for Scotland. Even when oil etc was over $100 a barrel etc, etc. I doubt this set of yearly figures will sway things very much. The referendum was No and and FFA is a way off yet. If at all.

CLAPTON

Shakethedisease wrote: »

I don't think the Scots voters are buying it. We've already had 3 years worth of disaster economics for Scotland. Even when oil etc was over $100 a barrel etc, etc. I doubt this set of yearly figures will sway things very much. The referendum was No and and FFA is a way off yet. If at all.

The Scots, like the rest of the UK, have been borrowing every single year since 2001/2 to fund their lifestyle.

Per person, they have had a large share of the available money that their English friends.

In what way has the last three years been disastrous?
Yes the overspending has been reduced a little bit : the SNP has chosen to spend unwisely that that's the democrat choice of the Scots.

Your only solution is to borrow even more for ever?

kabayiri

Shakethedisease wrote: »

I don't think the Scots voters are buying it. We've already had 3 years worth of disaster economics for Scotland. Even when oil etc was over $100 a barrel etc, etc. I doubt this set of yearly figures will sway things very much. The referendum was No and and FFA is a way off yet. If at all.

Now I know you are talking twaddle.

We are 6 years out from the worst financial crash in decades. Things are of course tough.

We are cushioned in comparison. Unemployment levels are relatively low. Interest rates are at record lows. "Disaster economics" ? ...not even close.

If you want to see "disaster economics" go and have a look at Greece. That's what you get for being a small nation state who adopted spendy spendy policies and voted to be part of the Euro.

Now I wonder which Scottish party also supported the Euro adoption? hmm...

Shakethedisease

kabayiri wrote: »

Now I know you are talking twaddle.

We are 6 years out from the worst financial crash in decades. Things are of course tough.

We are cushioned in comparison. Unemployment levels are relatively low. Interest rates are at record lows. "Disaster economics" ? ...not even close.

If you want to see "disaster economics" go and have a look at Greece. That's what you get for being a small nation state who adopted spendy spendy policies and voted to be part of the Euro.

Now I wonder which Scottish party also supported the Euro adoption? hmm...

Hmmmm and I wonder which thread on this forum went round and round the GERS roundabout a few pages back ? If you want my views, read there. I'm not going through it all again. Disaster economics has been predicted upon Scottish independence ( only now it's FFA ) again and again and again over the last three years. Support for full independence only went up along the way, not down. And Devo-Max/FFA has lead by miles in the 3 options ( status quo, Devo-Max or independence ) on every single poll taken for the same length of time.

It's all falling, rightly or wrongly, on deaf ears.

So you can save yourself some time by not expecting any more of my input discussing GERS figures. Those that follow this thread know them already. This years were never going to be good. Same as next years most likely. Whether they are a result of being in the union, or despite it, depends entirely on personal opinion.

ruggedtoast

Shakethedisease wrote: »

I don't think the Scots voters are buying it. We've already had 3 years worth of disaster economics for Scotland. Even when oil etc was over $100 a barrel etc, etc. I doubt this set of yearly figures will sway things very much. The referendum was No and and FFA is a way off yet. If at all.

Disaster economics? What on earth have you got to complain about now? The economy has recovered reasonably well over the last few years and Scotland has been protected from the majority of the cuts that England has faced. Thanks to the largesse of English taxpayers mostly.