Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

And another thing.....

What happened to the secret oil fields that were supposed to have been covered up by the UK until just after the referendum? You know, the massive, about to be announced, super secret bigger than Kuwait fields that Cameron supposedly flew to the Shetlands to see? The ones that the oil workers had mysteriously been sent home from?

No?

Didn't think so....

Shakethedisease

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Shame the SNP needed oil at $113 per barrel or higher just to keep the Scottish deficit to within striking distance of the UK one then....

At $50 a barrel, an iScotland would have a budget deficit of circa 12% to 15% of GDP, and circa 25% of government spending.

Oil revenues this year may be as low as $1.5bn.... Versus £12bn in 2008.

If you don't understand how devastating that is, for a tiny country with a £17bn deficit between onshore tax revenue and government spending, well.... I can't see how you can deny just how impossible the situation would be.

The SNP went on the same predictions as everyone else did.. You can't paint it as something unique to the SNP no matter how much you want it to be true.

Are crystal balls returnable? If you ever want to exercise your cynicism muscles, it’s worth pedalling through the oil price forecasts that the Government collects in one handy document each month. Six months ago, the average forecast for the average oil price in 2015 was $106 a barrel. Even just last month, the average was $80. Yet Brent crude is currently trading at less than $50 dollars a barrel, with little expectation that it will rise any time soon. Those earlier forecasts could end up looking pretty stupid.

http://www.conservativehome.com/highlights/2015/01/how-everyone-was-blindsided-by-oil-prices-but-especially-salmond.html

The one thing everyone does know however, is like any other commodity. That it's volatile. You pointed out yourself on the other thread just how much, posting numerous highs and lows.. and citing $100 a barrel as 'boom time'. Aberdeen and the UK survived them all. There's no reason to assume an independent Scotland wouldn't have done the same.. in a hypothetical 2016-17 scenario where there was a Yes vote. Which there wasn't. And oil prices stay low.. which no-one knows and can only ever guess at.

You're living in 'airy-fairy what-if' land. Oil revenues have always gone straight to the UK treasury. They've woefully mismanaged them, failing to prepare for any downturns like other's have done. If oil is such a little part of UK finances. Then what exactly is the problem of devolving them in their entirety to Holyrood ?

And why not. Endless moans about EVEL, Barnett formula's, grants to scrounging jocks, mansion taxes for nurses etc etc. A quick browse through the comments section in the Telegraph should confirm this entrenched way of thinking... Could all be solved at a stroke with full FFA.

But in short, to put this in perspective. You're looking at this from an angle of 'Scotland couldn't ever possibly cope because risks, guesstimates of x,y and z'.. Whereas those that wish much more in the way of further powers are coming from an angle of 'We really need to change a,b and c if we're to get anything better and we can't do that at the moment. Time mabye to think about voting for those that offer it'.
It's the latter view that is winning the day. And most probably the votes. But Scotland won't ever get out of this 'oil reliance' ( and again the degree of reliance is in dispute ) cycle as things stand at the present time, in order to grow other areas of the Scottish economy. Something has to change somewhere. The natives are getting restless.

The Greeks just voted for complete uncertainty and risk. Not sure of currency, EU exits and what will happen to their economy. And rise or fall they'll have to live with the consequences. But the one thing they are sure of is that things will change. It feels a little bit like that in Scotland just now.

Sturgeon's personal ratings are sky high. The polls have been consistent so far. The last weeks leading up to the election and all the furore over leaders debates will pitch her directly against Milliband and Cameron ( if he appears) getting airtime with millions of viewers instead of an increasingly desperate and flailing Murphy ( photographed playing keepie-up in Aberdeen today instead of voting against fracking in Westminster )... in a hidden away BBC Scotland 'regional' leaders debate.

Oil prices and hidden oil fields will be neither here nor there in May. But you keep carping on about them if you wish. No-one is taking much notice anymore. The referendum is over. Everything else will soon be down to the arithmetic on Westminster seats, not oil prices.


.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Shakethedisease wrote: »

The one thing everyone does know however, is like any other commodity. That it's volatile.

Funny, because the SNP completely ignored that in the run up to the referendum, despite being repeatedly warned.

You pointed out yourself on the other thread just how much, posting numerous highs and lows.. and citing $100 a barrel as 'boom time'. Aberdeen and the UK survived them all. There's no reason to assume an independent Scotland wouldn't have done the same..

And now you're either being incredibly naive or deliberately disingenuous.

Aberdeen is not reliant on the tax revenue from the oil fields. It's reliant on the infrastructure already in place and the employment that creates. So long as oil stays above the $30-$40 range it's cheaper to keep the oil pumping and most of the people employed than to decommission the fields. Yes, exploration will suffer, and the local economy will shrink a bit, but not disastrously so.

The UK government is hardly reliant at all upon oil revenue taxes, it's less than 1% of UK GDP. So sorry but that's a strawman argument you've created.

The government of an iScotland is absolutely dependant on oil revenue taxation however, as Scotland has a £17bn deficit between government spending and onshore taxation.

In 2008/9 oil revenues were £12bn. That leaves a £5bn deficit, which is serious, but potentially manageable through borrowing to buy time to make gradual cuts or let the economy grow.

In 2011/12 oil revenues were just under £8bn. That leaves a £9bn annual deficit, which would be incredibly difficult for an iScotland to cope with, within a few short years Scotland's debt to GDP would be unsustainably high, swingeing cuts would be required (far beyond what is currently planned), the costs of borrowing would shoot up, the economy would fall into recession, unemployment would soar, etc.

In 2014 oil revenues are likely to be as little as £1.5bn..... That leaves a £15bn+ annual deficit, and it's game over. Scotland would be bankrupt in short order. Time to call in the IMF, and we'd face austerity levels that would make Greece look like a picnic in the park.

Anyone that said an iScotland's public finances were not reliant on oil lied through their teeth.... it is not a bonus, it is not the icing on the cake, only boom-time oil prices could keep Scotland's deficit to remotely manageable levels. And today's prices would leave Scotland on the brink of disaster.

If some of us sound a tad angry about this it's because we are....

The Yes campaigners lied, and lied, and lied again about this topic, and they've been caught out within months.

Had they succeeded in conning a few percent more people we'd be staring down the barrel of an economic disaster. Those actions would have led to consequences so dire that the Thatcher years would seem benevolent by comparison.

The Yes campaign should be utterly ashamed of themselves and begging for forgiveness. Instead they continue to plot and scheme in hope of one day achieving their little vanity project, and the cost to people's jobs, wealth, livelihoods, and our future be damned.

It is absolutely disgraceful behaviour.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Shakethedisease wrote: »

The SNP went on the same predictions as everyone else did..

You do seem to like rewriting history.

Here's the reality.....

The chief secretary to the treasury has claimed the Scottish government is offering voters a "fantastical" future based on unrealistic oil forecasts. Danny Alexander's comments, in a letter to First Minister Alex Salmond, came after forecasters cut North Sea oil income tax estimates.

And in reply.....

Mr Salmond has dismissed the assessment as "stuff and nonsense".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-28260475

The yes campaign were warned by the Treasury and the OBR that the SNP forecasts were "fantastical".

They tried to bluff and buster their way out.

They've been proven wrong within months.

Shakethedisease

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Funny, because the SNP completely ignored that in the run up to the referendum, despite being repeatedly warned.



And now you're either being incredibly naive or deliberately disingenuous.

Aberdeen is not reliant on the tax revenue from the oil fields. It's reliant on the infrastructure already in place and the employment that creates. So long as oil stays above the $30-$40 range it's cheaper to keep the oil pumping and most of the people employed than to decommission the fields. Yes, exploration will suffer, and the local economy will shrink a bit, but not disastrously so.

The UK government is hardly reliant at all upon oil revenue taxes, it's less than 1% of UK GDP. So sorry but that's a strawman argument you've created.

The government of an iScotland is absolutely dependant on oil revenue taxation however, as Scotland has a £17bn deficit between government spending and onshore taxation.

In 2008/9 oil revenues were £12bn. That leaves a £5bn deficit, which is serious, but potentially manageable through borrowing to buy time to make gradual cuts or let the economy grow.

In 2011/12 oil revenues were just under £8bn. That leaves a £9bn annual deficit, which would be incredibly difficult for an iScotland to cope with, within a few short years Scotland's debt to GDP would be unsustainably high, swingeing cuts would be required (far beyond what is currently planned), the costs of borrowing would shoot up, the economy would fall into recession, unemployment would soar, etc.

In 2014 oil revenues are likely to be as little as £1.5bn..... That leaves a £15bn+ annual deficit, and it's game over. Scotland would be bankrupt in short order. Time to call in the IMF, and we'd face austerity levels that would make Greece look like a picnic in the park.

Anyone that said an iScotland's public finances were not reliant on oil lied through their teeth.... it is not a bonus, it is not the icing on the cake, only boom-time oil prices could keep Scotland's deficit to remotely manageable levels. And today's prices would leave Scotland on the brink of disaster.

If some of us sound a tad angry about this it's because we are....

The Yes campaigners lied, and lied, and lied again about this topic, and they've been caught out within months.

Had they succeeded in conning a few percent more people we'd be staring down the barrel of an economic disaster. Those actions would have led to consequences so dire that the Thatcher years would seem benevolent by comparison.

The Yes campaign should be utterly ashamed of themselves and begging for forgiveness. Instead they continue to plot and scheme in hope of one day achieving their little vanity project, and the cost to people's jobs, wealth, livelihoods, and our future be damned.

It is absolutely disgraceful behaviour.

Scotland would not be independent today. Even if there was a Yes vote. You cannot predict what oil prices would be when Scotland actually would have declared official independence. Oil prices high OR low.. and lets face it, for most of the referendum period they WERE high. You were still predicting absolute doom anyway.
I distinctly remember you dancing about with glee on these forums posting up pic after pic and post after post raving on about Ian Wood and his headlines before the ref. Only it wasn't the price of oil back then.. oh no, it was 'how much was left'. And how 'Scotland would never cope/black holes' etc. It's all getting pretty 'samey' to be honest. We get it. Oil is volatile and prices/reserves are unpredictable. We KNOW !!!!

So, spare us all the 'predicting' will you ? You can't. Nor can anyone else. The SNP based their predictions on the same expert predictions that the UK government did. Don't try and pretend otherwise. They ALL got it wrong. Because volatility, by it's very nature means that you cannot predict anything with any certainty.

And prices can of course go up as well as down. After post after post on that other thread detailing the lows AND highs. You surely can't be getting all hot and bothered over a low you've seen many times before only to recover ? I look forward to your posts endorsing an independent Scotland if prices ever do go back up shall I ? Instead of doom. But I doubt it. Why not just admit that Scotland having FFA or Independence isn't to your taste and be done with it. Oil prices are just the latest convenient stick to beat the SNP with until the election. It was how much was left before that before the referendum.. and I dare say it will be something else soon enough.

The White Paper was printed in Nov 13. Oil prices weren't revised down until much later in in 2014. But again. expert predictions, wherever they come from, or however many headlines they get.. are just that, predictions. And these are frequently wrong.

I have no wish to re-run the independence campaign debates here. Suffice to say there was a No vote and we'll all have to just get on with the result, and that of the next 2 important elections and see what pans out. Oil prices may well be relevant if Westminster decides that it cannot work with SNP MP's there.. and boot/encourage Scotland out instead of facing political chaos and English resentment among a plethoria of other possible outcomes that may ensue after May.

But not right now. Go and have a lie down Hamish. With all due respect, I think you're having BetterTogether flashbacks .

zagubov

.string. wrote: »

Some of the many issues related to "Total Fiscal Auronomy" are related to Scotland's contribution to the shared cost of being in the Union. Take for example the following:

1 How does Scotland contribute to the "Insurance" that is provided for the currency and for the money which would be needed, for example, to bail out a Bank or support the Pound in times of National emergency.

2 What happens if (when) Scotland does not achieve a balanced budget and additional debt - who bails them out?

3 How will Scotland fare when the English decide to support English goods and not UK goods in order to benefit the English economy and not the Scottish economy?

4 Why should the English support North Sea Oil exploration when there is no benefit to England as a result? ... or anything else for that matter?

5 How will Scotland contribute to its share of bringing down the National debt?

Good questions, and if nobody here knows the answers, there may be other precedents elsewhere.

It might be worth checking how do Spain and Belgium handle this? Or Greenland in the Kingdom of Denmark?
Admittedly not a perfect analogy as they're in the eurozone (apart from Denmark).

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Oh there is one thing they could do.....

Abolish the Sottish executive and mandate that only Scottish MP's vote on Scottish issues, English MP's vote on English issues, etc. West Lothian question solved in one fell swoop.

One parliament, a stronger Union, immense cost savings, and a single set of laws throughout the UK without indulging the ill thought out and vainglorious pet projects of amateurs.

Plus, we get rid of the bunch of incompetent glorified county councillors currently riding the Holyrood gravytrain - which is always a bonus.

Interesting ideas. A centralised government containing four virtual parliaments which merge together for joint decisions and then separate deal with the home nations issues individually.

Can sell off that ridiculous talking shop in expensive London town and have it somewhere closer to the population and capitals of the political union, somewhere between Birmingham and the north. Shared access to the relocated civil service.

I wonder if anyone will suggest going a step higher and merging it with the Brussels parliament or the UN in New York. Cost savings galore I'm sure!:j

robmatic

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

How is the UK stopping us growing today?

The value of Scottish international exports rose to a record high of £27.9 billion in 2013, according to latest official figures.
Exports rose by 7.2 per cent on the previous year or £1.9 billion, according to figures presented in the Scottish Government's Global Connections Survey.

How indeed...

Shakethedisease

robmatic wrote: »

How indeed...

Well it might be nice to have exports and other revenues..

Scotch whisky contributes almost £5bn to the UK economy and supports more than 40,000 jobs, according to research commissioned by the industry.
The Scotch Whisky Association (SWA) said the sector now accounted for 25% of total UK food and drink exports.
Its report also suggested that the industry's direct economic impact had grown by 21% since 2008, to £3.3bn.
It found it added more value to the economy than shipbuilding, iron and steel, textiles or computing.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-31003387

Credited directly to Scotland ? Rather than all revenues going straight down to the UK treasury only for pocket money ( depending on English spending ) to be handed back ?

Scots are pretty sick of being the eternal scroungers and having to listen to rants like Paul Nuttall's on last weeks Question Time. Asserting all the Scots did was 'take, take, take, take, take, take, take.' from English taxpayers ? On national TV with no right of reply even. It's wearing VERY thin. There are more than a few of us don't want to 'take' anything anymore. And perhaps prioritise other things that 'fit' the Scottish economy better. Welfare reforms haven't gone down well here either ( Bedroom tax ), immigration to England isn't the same as dealing with a lack of it/people leaving/ aging population up here.. One size doesn't fit all, all the time.

I guess it's just a case of different choices and priorities. Free tuition fees, prescription charges being an example of what a devolved government CAN do with it's pocket money when it makes differing choices from Westminster as a whole. The whole 'Scots as scroungers' thing.. sheesh. Enough now.

On polls, as Generali pointed out the Ashcroft Scottish constituency one's are being eagerly awaited. He made a few hints tonight on Sky..

Pollster Lord Ashcroft has told Sky News in a rare interview that the surge in support for the SNP in Scotland "is real".
It comes a day after a Sky News projection said the nationalist party could increase its number of seats at the General Election from its current six to 53...
..

The former Tory party treasurer suggested the political centre of gravity in Scotland was more to the left.
He went on: "Who do you want to represent you - Labour who you are not quite sure where they stand on the Scottish issue.
"Or the SNP who you do know where they stand for on Scotland. Therefore one would expect a surge for the SNP."
Lord Ashcroft is currently polling Scottish seats for the first time and the results will be published within days.
The findings may not make happy reading for Labour in Scotland.

http://news.sky.com/story/1416764/snp-surge-is-real-says-pollster-lord-ashcroft

The SNP will get nowhere near 53 imho... but.. may just get enough to make waves in what happens next on 8th May depending on how Labour/Tories/Lib Dems do elsewhere. I guess he wouldn't be hinting at an SNP surge being 'real' if Jim Murphy was staging any sort of big recovery for Labour anyway.
Tories poll wise seem to be closing in on Labour quite quickly and I personally think a lot of UKIP voters may return home on the day. Also the 'vote SNP get Tory' mantra may recall a few Yes voters home too if the Tories look like getting back in ( the low information voters ). Not looking like that at the moment though.

skintmacflint

Maybe a daft question but been wondering about this.

Assuming the SNP keep their best people for MSPS (cough), what calibre of candidate will they be putting forward for Westminster.

Are they relying on Salmond winning in the Gordon seat, therefore it doesn't really matter if they're a bunch of numpties as he'll be telling them exactly what to do and when , or else.

.string.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

You're ok. Still suffering from anti-SNP delusions and random rants devoid of much in the way of facts. But am glad you've partially recovered from your 'wee turn'.

Oh I'm under no delusions about the SNP. I would comment on what you wrote afterwards but others have pointed out the falacies. I'll just mention one point, the SNP Conpaign for the Scottish Referendum did show to all how they based their economic argument on flakey ground. It's not that they were not warned (they liked to call the warnings "fear" but in fact the warnings were well-based as events have shown).

So you should not be surprised if that little part of the SNP's disingenuous attitude to their "Sheeple" gets referred to - people need to be reminded of their form.

I see the clouds are gathering regarding Labour and the claimed potential there for some sort of an agreement with the SNP should Labour come first in the General Election. Mutterings of Labour doing business with the SNP and the Sinn Fein are starting. Not that I think such is likely but I would not be surprised if the Labour leadership is forced to rule out any idea of a deal with SNP as a result; either that or loose votes in the rest of the UK.

Vote SNP and get the Tories!