Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

elantan

The truth is Clapton, I know as much as I need to know, all the info is there to learn for anyone that wishes to, I am not however campaigning on behalf of the SNP, I am not a member of the SNP either.

I campaigned up till 10pm on Sep 18th and now well now I just watch and add wee bits in, I find it all fascinating stuff, but I ain't interested in talking policies or anything else, my time for that is done.

Was asked several times yesterday to stand in 2016 as I do know my stuff, and am the type of person that could really make a difference, I choose not to, I choose to watch it all unfold and enjoy the fruits of my hard work from last year, I also don't think the SNP could tame me either tbh but that's an aside

elantan

CLAPTON wrote: »

tell us what your views are about SNP politicians buying council houses rather than refusing to answer

I am curious to know why you are so desperate to hear my views though .... Actually I ain't at all just thought I would give u a wee bit more attention you seem to need it

Leanne1812

kabayiri wrote: »

Oil resilience fund ! Lol. Love it.

When did Scotland become Fantasy island?

You make it all sound so easy, you political fans. Socialist Lefty parties don't save money; they spend other people's money.

The oil revenues haven't ever been Scotland's to decide though have they?

Tell me the last time a socialist lefty party was in charge?

Why wasn't an oil fund considered when the revenues were huge?

Yep, these right wing parties always get it so right don't they.........:rotfl:

CLAPTON

elantan wrote: »

I am curious to know why you are so desperate to hear my views though .... Actually I ain't at all just thought I would give u a wee bit more attention you seem to need it

because you write acolyte stuff like a true unquestioning supporter and trivialise all SNP errors and any comments that question SNP policies and actions, honesty or integrity : a true follower of some other parties that were nationalist and socialists.

I can see why they would want you on their side to help justify the unjustifiable

elantan

CLAPTON wrote: »

because you write acolyte stuff like a true unquestioning supporter and trivialise all SNP errors and any comments that question SNP policies and actions, honesty or integrity : a true follower of some other parties that were nationalist and socialists.

I can see why they would want you on their side to help justify the unjustifiable

Oh you've cut me deeply Clapton , :rotfl::rotfl:

CLAPTON

elantan wrote: »

Oh you've cut me deeply Clapton , :rotfl::rotfl:

quite an interest specimen; a true and pure breed of acolyte

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Shakethedisease wrote: »

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.

Well then I'm sure you won't mind if I take the liberty of demolishing this vapid attempt at rational thought.

a moment's rational thought, uncontaminated by partisan prejudice or ideological bigotry, brings the immediate realisation that,

When someone has to patronisingly explain that they are being rational, and try to convince the reader they are uncontaminated by partisan prejudice or ideological bigotry, it's usually a safe bet they are actually all of those things.

But lets carry on....:)

in its essentials, Scotland's situation would be absolutely no different at all if we were independent.

Oh this is going to be fun....

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.

Yes, it would.

Unless of course, it couldn't borrow at reasonable rates or even at all, then we'd be in for financial calamity.

But more on that later.

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 that's where his argument goes off the rails....

The UK government is borrowing 4.8% of GDP for the entire UK deficit, including the funds used to subsidise Scotland.

The Scottish government would have to borrow close to 15% of Scottish GDP.....

Which would of course be completely impossible at anything other than userous rates, and even then, for a matter of months only before we had to call in the IMF.

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.

Utter nonsense.

Scotland is being subsidised to the tune of billions of pounds a year by the rUK taxpayers.

If we had full fiscal autonomy that subsidy would stop. Only then would we have to "shoulder the full burden of that debt".

At this level of analysis, there is no difference whatever. And it is clear that Baillie and Fraser are both talking drivel.

Clearly the author is either economically illiterate, or so prejudiced and partisan he'd have to preface such an article with a statement claiming to be neither....

Oh... wait.:cool:

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.

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?".

:rotfl:

Lets stick to the facts....

There is no need for 'what if'. Fiscal autonomy, if gained, would start from now on, not from 30 years ago. Nanny Sturgeon, as far as I know, has not invented a time machine.

So we can only take the facts as they are today, namely, Scotland today has a crippling deficit today the size of which, relative to GDP, it could not possibly hope to borrow sufficient funds to cover on an ongoing basis.

We are entitled to say, what if Scotland had borrowing powers the same as any other nation?

What, like Greece?

Actually, no, never mind, Greece is now running a primary surplus. But only because of Austerity Max - 50% youth unemployment, 26% adult unemployment, benefits slashed to the core, and hospitals running out of medicine that they can no longer afford to buy.

Scotland wouldn't be in quite that good a shape.;)

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?

Seriously, whatever that guy is smoking, I want some.

Name one country, any country, that has approaching a 15% of GDP deficit that can borrow at better rates than the Uk. Or even at all.

Just one will do.

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?

That would be 'lovely'. But that's only around 3% of the Scottish deficit this year. And Nanny Sturgeon has already committed those savings 3 times over to new unfunded social projects.

So where would the other 97% come from?

What if Scotland's economy was shaped more equitably and was therefore more productive?

The most productive economy in the World is the USA.

It's also amongst the least 'equitable'.

Because you don't increase productivity by taxing the productive to give more funds to the unproductive.

What if Scotland had control of all the economic levers that are available to other nations?

Like what?

Scotland already has the power to vary tax, but chooses not to do so.

Scotland already has the power to remove the bedroom tax, but chooses not to do so.

Scotland in fact already has autonomy in vast areas of public spending and social policy that it either chooses not to use, or to maintain similar policies to the UK.

I wonder why?

What if Scotland was just a normal country?

Ah...

Of course.

That's why.

Scotland is just a normal country.

Subject to the same harsh economic reality as all other normal countries.

And just as other normal countries, like Greece or Ireland, who lived well beyond their means had to suffer horrendous cuts and crippling austerity, so would we were it not for the subsidy that flows from the rest of the UK.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Leanne1812 wrote: »

At least had we needed to borrow then we know any do's & dont's would be temporary.

How well has that worked out for Greece? :eek:

Leanne, I'll try to keep this simple for you....

Imagine you worked very hard for a living, but you still spent 25% more than you earned every month, like Scotland does.

But unlike Scotland, who has a much richer relative to subsidise their living expenses, you had to go out and borrow the difference to survive.

The first month, you might be able to put it on a credit card. The second month you might be able to extend your overdraft. The third month, you might get another credit card. But pretty soon the bank and card companies would see how much debt you had taken on and raise your interest rates to discourage you from overborrowing.

Then you'd find yourself struggling to pay the interest and still survive.... and then they'd stop lending you more money.

And shortly thereafter you'd find the only place left that would lend you money would be Wonga.... Or if you were Scotland, the IMF, on similarly harsh conditions.

That's the reality.

Generali

Shakethedisease wrote: »

You don't rely on it 100% in the first place. Or you set up an oil resiliance fund ( <---- this is Scottish Labour's idea 2 weeks ago ), you diversify other sectors/technologies/renewables/tourism/manufacturing/retail so that any price shocks are absorbed much better. It's not all so black and white as you like to paint it.

...And then you smile and remember the old days, where when oil prices fell to $60 a barrel, that you got only 8.9% of the tax take back.... instead of 100% of every barrel of it. And then you make sure that if it goes back up to $100+ a barrel, that you've got a nice new shiny bank account to stash any surplus in for the next price fall.
You keep making the mistake that FFA or independence would mean still strictly following a UK economics model as is. In fact the point of it, is so that Scotland no longer has to, and improves it's position and performance. Which, if GERS is to be believed, isn't doing so well within the union at the current time.

Scotland is running a deficit of 1/7th of her annual spending. Where is the money for this pot of gold going to come from?

Leanne1812

If I do the maths I can't get 1/7 (Gen) and 25% (Ham) to be the same. Someone has got the maths wrong.

Who is it?

Could the billions of subsidy also be wrong?