Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

Shakethedisease

Generali wrote: »

Ah yes, the standard move for the SNP playbook: mock and belittle the messenger and point out how much better the SNP is. The only bit you omitted was the ranted threats to the messenger's wellbeing.

Don't go overboard. It was Paddy Ashdown reviewing Alex's Salmond's book, a book I doubt he's even had the time to read. More in the way of sour grapes rather than any sort of literary expertise I think.

The bit about the book signing attracting more than was at the Lib Dem conference is true also.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Leanne1812 wrote: »

So, we'd need to borrow heaven forbid!

It's not like the UK aren't already borrowing.

The UK is borrowing 4.8% of GDP this year.

A fully devolved Scotland or iScotland would need to borrow closer to 15% of Scottish GDP this year.

There is not a single developed country, not even one, that is able to borrow close to 15% of GDP a year at anything other than userous rates.

That is "call in the IMF" time, and Greek levels of Extreme Austerity are where we end up.

How is it possible you don't understand this???

As yet no proof that we are indeed subsidised.

Why can't you point me to a breakdown showing where the money goes?

A bit suspect that.........

Why don't you trust the SNP controlled Scottish government's own GERS figures?

Are you saying the SNP are "a bit suspect"?

Do you think Swinney's cabinet report last year worrying about the ability to maintain a viable state or even pay pensions if oil revenue plummeted, and Sturgeons admission this week that oil revenues were indeed going to be less than 10% of the Yes campaign's forecast, are all a big Unionist conspiracy?

Really?

Shakethedisease

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

The UK is borrowing 4.8% of GDP this year.

A fully devolved Scotland or iScotland would need to borrow closer to 15% of Scottish GDP this year.

There is not a single developed country, not even one, that is able to borrow close to 15% of GDP a year at anything other than userous rates.

That is "call in the IMF" time, and Greek levels of Extreme Austerity are where we end up.

How is it possible you don't understand this???



Why don't you trust the SNP controlled Scottish government's own GERS figures?

Are you saying the SNP are "a bit suspect"?

Do you think Swinney's cabinet report last year worrying about the ability to maintain a viable state or even pay pensions if oil revenue plummeted, and Sturgeons admission this week that oil revenues were indeed going to be less than 10% of the Yes campaign's forecast, are all a big Unionist conspiracy?

Really?

The figures/data come from the Treasury... then to the Scottish Affairs Committee, then to the Scottish Colonial Office.. then to The Scottish Government to be output in the form of GERS. I believe ( am not 100% and happy to be corrected in the above ).

But how GERS in produced, or in what order the data comes through and from where... they aren't the Scottish Government's 'own' figures. They come from the UK Treasury whom we must trust are being completely impartial with it's data crunching. There are quite a lot of 'estimates' among the figures also.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Shakethedisease wrote: »

I believe ( am not 100% and happy to be corrected in the above ).

But how GERS in produced, or in what order the data comes through and from where... they aren't the Scottish Government's 'own' figures. .

The SNP have been the party of government in Scotland for many years.

They've had more than enough time to try and dispute the figures.

That they haven't done so in any way leads me to believe that they know full well they are pretty much accurate.

Lets not forget the pro-indy source you posted here challenging them could only find a difference of less than one percent.

Anyway, maybe you can answer the question Leanne keeps avoiding....

Do you think Swinney's cabinet report last year worrying about the ability to maintain a viable state or even pay pensions if oil revenue plummeted, and Sturgeons admission this week that oil revenues were indeed going to be less than 10% of the Yes campaign's forecast, are all a big Unionist conspiracy?

Shakethedisease

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

The SNP have been the party of government in Scotland for many years.

They've had more than enough time to try and dispute the figures.

That they haven't done so in any way leads me to believe that they know full well they are pretty much accurate.

Lets not forget the pro-indy source you posted here challenging them could only find a difference of less than one percent.

Anyway, maybe you can answer the question Leanne keeps avoiding....

Do you think Swinney's cabinet report last year worrying about the ability to maintain a viable state or even pay pensions if oil revenue plummeted, and Sturgeons admission this week that oil revenues were indeed going to be less than 10% of the Yes campaign's forecast, are all a big Unionist conspiracy?

I think Peter A Bell answers this much more concisely and straightforwardly that I could, so am taking the liberty of copying and pasting it here.

But a moment's rational thought, uncontaminated by partisan prejudice or ideological bigotry, brings the immediate realisation that, in its essentials, Scotland's situation would be absolutely no different at all if we were independent. The government of an independent Scotland would have to borrow in order to compensate for any shortfall in anticipated revenues, such as might be occasioned by an unforeseen collapse in oil prices.

But that is exactly what is happening anyway. It is what is happening now. The UK Government is borrowing to compensate for the shortfall in anticipated revenues occasioned by the unforeseen collapse in oil prices. It is doing, on Scotland's behalf, precisely what the government of an independent Scotland would do. And taxpayers in Scotland are having to shoulder the burden of that debt just as they would if it had been incurred by their own government. At this level of analysis, there is no difference whatever. And it is clear that Baillie and Fraser are both talking drivel.

They compound this glaring fallacy by assuming that independence (or full fiscal autonomy (!!!!!!)) would not imply any changes other than those that they choose to acknowledge. They play a childish game of "What If?" in which they appoint themselves arbiters of what may legitimately be supposed. As just described, they choose to suppose that the Scottish Government would be affected by the shortfall in revenues associated with lower than expected oil prices. But they choose NOT to suppose that the Scottish Government will have the borrowing powers associated with independence (or !!!!!!). Thus, they magic into existence an entirely imaginary "crisis" which simply could not exist in the real world.

Their game of "What If?" is self-servingly selective. But we can play the same game. We can add in the "whatifs" that they insist must be excluded. By doing so, we create a vastly more realistic picture. Baillie and Fraser are only capable of imagining the Scottish Government having problems. But, being less blinkered in our approach, we can fill in the blanks and imagine the Scottish Government having the powers to address those problems. Powers which are, in fact, implicit in the assumption of independence/!!!!!!, but which are removed from the equation because they are inconvenient to the purposes of unionist propaganda.

If Baillie and Fraser can say, "What if Scotland had been independent when the oil price collapsed?", we are just as entitled to say, "What if Scotland had an oil fund, which it surely would have if it had been independent?".
We are entitled to say, what if Scotland had borrowing powers the same as any other nation? What if Scotland could borrow more cheaply than the UK? What if Scotland had grown other sectors of the economy in order to reduce the relative size of the oil and gas sector?

What if we didn't have the additional burden of paying for the British state's obsession with weapons of mass destruction and the projection of imperialist military power? What if Scotland's economy was shaped more equitably and was therefore more productive? What if Scotland had control of all the economic levers that are available to other nations?

What if Scotland was just a normal country?

In short, in case that was too long for you to bother with.. Scotland at the moment doesn't have the powers to negate any downturn in revenues etc and it's used continually as a reason to stay in the union as it is. When in actual fact, some see it as the very reason to gain more powers (independence/FFA). Can you imagine the Treasury throwing out report after report that Scotland was doing really well ? Independence would be a shoo in, very quickly. It's rather in the UK govt's interests to play down Scotland a little ( most especially at the current time ) I would imagine. Am not saying they're lying, am simply pointing out that it wouldn't be in the UK/Union's interests to make Scotland look too good. Whatever the situation.

Wasn't that 'cabinet report' arguable anyway ? Produced by the No campaign/BetterTogether ? I remember you and I discussing it before. * note the OBR's oil prediction fail.

There’s no actual contradiction between stating the fact that Scotland is better off than the UK now, and accepting that it MIGHT be (“marginally”) worse off in the future, assuming an independent Scotland adopted the same spending plans as the UK. In reality, though, nobody has the faintest idea what either nation’s economic status will be by 2017. Every UK growth forecast of the last five years has been massively wrong, and the OBR’s forecast for the price of oil over a SINGLE year was out by around 20% in 2011-12 (see paragraph 2.58 and others). The notion that anyone can accurately predict the oil price (or production levels) four years in advance is ludicrous...


There is no suggestion, indeed no mention at all, of cutting pensions in the SNP paper. Any country’s exchequer must “consider the affordability” of every aspect of its programme. Ironically, Labour angrily protests at anyone who says its commission currently “considering the affordability” of universal services is in fact talking about cuts. It can’t have that both ways...

Those quotes are from Wings BTW 2 years ago about this 'cabinet leak' ( it wasn't just last year like you said, it was March 2013 ).. But I can't see where where they were wrong with any of the the above. Anyway, if you can do BetterTogether still I can certainly throw in a little Wings.

Leanne1812

Hamish, as yet you have not proved that Scotland is indeed subsidized. The 'uk spending' on our behalf goes where exactly? If you can confirm where then we will be going some way to convince me Scotland takes from the union more than she puts in.

Thank you to Shakes who has put into words an answer better than I can.

Is it not somewhat strange to fight so hard to want to keep such a drain in the union?

It does not add up....

elantan

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jBOj1xAu2NQ watched this again today, thought you might enjoy it Shake and Leanne

had me greeting again

chewmylegoff

Still quoting the Wings Over Scotland website as if it is a factual source? That's hilarious! You might as well quote Mel Gibson from Braveheart.

Shakethedisease

chewmylegoff wrote: »

Still quoting the Wings Over Scotland website as if it is a factual source? That's hilarious! You might as well quote Mel Gibson from Braveheart.

If you can point me to where he was wrong in the above two quotes I'd be obliged. But you can't. Because he's not. Easier then just to do exactly you you've done.

There seems to be no problem here with quoting the Telegraph when it comes to Scottish matters. Yet their anti SNP stance is just as hilarious to many Scots I can assure you.

Cunning Nats have always planned to irritate the English in order to convince them that Scotland is more trouble than it is worth....
...Announce that in a future referendum any parts of Scotland that are contiguous to England and vote to stay in the UK will be permitted to do so. So would other Unionist regions large enough to be free-standing, while Orkney and Shetland could have Channel Isles status. At a stroke, this would crush any illusion that an independent Scotland could be economically viable.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/SNP/11485977/A-way-to-save-the-Union-from-the-cunning-Nats.html

Most of us don't actually bother much with MSM anymore. Which I guess is why the polls are the way they are, and the independence result was 45/55 instead of the 35/65 that was assumed for a long time in the run up. Despite the kitchen sink being thrown at it. Mock Wings if you must, but realise in return, there are lots that mock and find every bit as hilarious the deluded misinformation that you are being force fed on a daily basis. All for Tory votes.

They're still likely to lose though as things stand.. ( this may change ). So I guess they'll start ramping up the anti-SNP/Salmond stuff to ridiculous levels in the coming weeks. Their latest video is a hoot lol. But also reeks of desperation a bit. With good reason...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JeYlBRvUeE

Only Ladbrokes gives Cameron the hope of cobbling together a government with Ukip’s support – and betting markets were less accurate than opinion polls last time.There are no other sources of possible support for a Tory-led government. Northern Ireland’s SDLP, which is likely to continue to have three seats, almost always votes with Labour, and Sylvia Hermon, the independent Unionist, usually does too. In England, Cameron can rule out Respect’s George Galloway and Caroline Lucas, who I think will still be the only Green MP. As for Scotland, Nicola Sturgeon has said: “The SNP will not formally or informally prop up a Conservative government.”

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/the-tories-are-on-to-a-loser-if-the-election-comes-down-to-horse-trading-10125139.html

Leanne1812

I reckon Patronising Lady & that video must have been written/directed by the same person.....if you'd have said it was a parody I'd have believed it :rotfl:

I reckon Scotland will be sticking 2 fingers up to the conservatives this May.