Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

Generali

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Playing 'devil's advocate' to get the chat flowing. I see. But I didn't say he was being anti-scottish. I was just questioning the bit in your post where you said 'is this really how they feel in Scotland ?'.. then went on to expand a bit on historical reparations etc.

But since it was a brunch show, rather than a breakfast one, then that's fine.

6 August 2014http://www.buzzfeed.com/phoebearnold/9-claims-from-the-scottish-independence-debate-fact-checked?bffbuk

There's good years, bad years when it comes to oil prices.. then there's overall. Dry land does need to catch up, but Scotland needs the levers to do so. But with FFA or independence re oil it would of course be the geographical share that matters, overall. Generali is far too caught up in oil prices over the last 3 or 4 months and in awe of Hamish's ( biased as WingsoverScotland's ) posts. There's a much bigger picture. The above piece it has to be said, was generally negative re independence. Just so you don't think I'm quoting something out of context. But feel free to do a spreadsheet or something on the oil tax receipts since 1980.. and then use Hamish's crystal ball to predict oil prices for the next 10-20.

The spreadsheet you link to shows a deficit including oil receipts of £49,340,000,000 or £207,000,000,000 excluding oil receipts. What do you think Scotland shouldn't have spent the money on during the past 35 years to accumulate a SWF do you think? £50,000,000,000 is a lot of money to find just to get to a flat position and rather gives the lie to the idea that Scotland has given a massive subsidy to the UK.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

GERS itself is also full of estimates from the Treasury. Who seem reluctant to let the SNP anywhere near it. Hopefully someone will get the chance for a dig through in the coming months and years just to clarify. If Scotland is never going to survive either FFA or independence, I think we should have the right to know with 100% transparency if that IS the case. But with the likes of the McCrone report coming to light a few years ago.. it's very hard to trust what we're being told.

Who says that the Treasury is reluctant to let the SNP 'anywhere near' GERS? Your mate the blogger pointed out a couple of methodological errors and the ONS agreed these were inaccurate. IME the ONS is very good at admitting mistakes and rectifying them.

Tromking

kabayiri wrote: »

There was an interesting comment on the Wright Show earlier.

There was a comment that at the moment the rest of the Union is subsidising Scotland.

Mr Wright countered by suggesting that the UK as a whole benefitted from Oil revenues in earlier years.

The subsidy is nothing more than a bribe designed to keep the Scots tied to the Union. I have never understood the logic that Scots students or pensioners are entitled to a free Uni education or personal care simply because their region of the UK is closest to the British Oilfields.
The Oil money is a shared UK resource up and until the Scots choose to leave.

kabayiri

Tromking wrote: »

The subsidy is nothing more than a bribe designed to keep the Scots tied to the Union. I have never understood the logic that Scots students or pensioners are entitled to a free Uni education or personal care simply because their region of the UK is closest to the British Oilfields.
The Oil money is a shared UK resource up and until the Scots choose to leave.

London has an intellectual capital which has contributed enormously to the UK coffers as a whole.

Perhaps Londoners should demand some of the revenue they generate goes into free education; free prescriptions; free travel even?

elantan

kabayiri wrote: »

There was an interesting comment on the Wright Show earlier.

There was a comment that at the moment the rest of the Union is subsidising Scotland.

Mr Wright countered by suggesting that the UK as a whole benefitted from Oil revenues in earlier years.

This feels like reparation. Is there genuinely a view that Scotland deserves to walk away with a generous settlement in any split due to previous contributions?

If you take into account historic contribution from all regions then it would get extremely complicated.

ahhhhh YE OLDE subsidy junkie, not heard that one for a wee while

Tromking

elantan wrote: »

ahhhhh YE OLDE subsidy junkie, not heard that one for a wee while

Really?
Its the dominant narrative re. the Scots and Scotland in these parts.

Funnily enough, the idea of a birth of a politically energised and increasingly self confident Scotland isn`t gaining much traction in England.

elantan

I notice that and its such a shame, it would be wonderful if we all became politically aware together and sorted out the mess for all, self confidence can be a wonderful thing

.string.

kabayiri wrote: »

London has an intellectual capital which has contributed enormously to the UK coffers as a whole.

Perhaps Londoners should demand some of the revenue they generate goes into free education; free prescriptions; free travel even?

Yes - going back over the years would bring up sorts of things.

I wonder if I could sue Scotland for making me live with clocks which are out of step with Europe, making life difficult all round.

.string.

Generali wrote: »

Unless we see a significant rise in the oil price that would basically be straight away.

FFA isn't necessarily incompatible with Union, the USA has a form I believe. The logical way to bring it in would be for the Union to impose a tax to pay for the military, FCO etc and the Scottish Parliament & local Government then takes everything else.

The problem that Scotland would face is that as her economy fell off a cliff in the face of the massive austerity that the SNP would be forced to implement , the Union tax would be harder and harder to pay. As for the taxes to pay for Scottish stuff? That tax base would also be hollowed out but would only be Scotland's problem.

A couple of points on that - if you look at post 1286 you will find that Shakey (and therefore her SNP) has in mind that any money that was given to the UK would, in Natland, be from the Fiscally Autonomous Natland Government. So you can imagine the song about "The Soverign Will of the Scottish People" (originally used by Salmond but now easily discarded by the SNP when it suits them to work their anti-union machinations) being used to refuse to contribute to Trident, to Debt repayment, to troubles in Wales or Northern Ireland, let alone England, when there is a need.

So it is primarily that type of FFA I am referring to. The idea of a federal solution where UK taxes exist in parallel with Regional Taxes are a different matter.

The other thing, of course, is that the Nats try to talk about the only things being done by the UK are defence and embassies etc, but one has to ask, again, about the maintenance of the pound which would suffer if Natland became insolvent, or the Pensions earned by Scots as part of the UK. Do the SNP envisage paying their "insurance costs" on those, let alone pitiful bail-out charges - I don't think so.

Ex Pats who live abroad do not get the automatic cost of living increase (as far as I am aware) so what happens there?- who pays for the pensions and are such people, at present our fellow countrymen disbarred from the cost-of-living adjustments?

There are all sorts of things which are presently provided from the Union. If they are all deleted, or not paid for, there is no Union

So I still maintain that FFA is incompatible with th Union.

Shakethedisease

Generali wrote: »

The spreadsheet you link to shows a deficit including oil receipts of £49,340,000,000 or £207,000,000,000 excluding oil receipts. What do you think Scotland shouldn't have spent the money on during the past 35 years to accumulate a SWF do you think? £50,000,000,000 is a lot of money to find just to get to a flat position and rather gives the lie to the idea that Scotland has given a massive subsidy to the UK.

Who says that the Treasury is reluctant to let the SNP 'anywhere near' GERS? Your mate the blogger pointed out a couple of methodological errors and the ONS agreed these were inaccurate. IME the ONS is very good at admitting mistakes and rectifying them.

Why, a former Chancellor of the Exchequer did.. and I didn't say GERS figures, I said Treasury figures.

May 2013

Westminster politicians are “worried stiff” about independence leading to the UK losing Scottish oil income, a former Chancellor has claimed. Speaking in an interview with Holyrood, Denis Healey, who was Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer before Margaret Thatcher’s Conservative Government came to power, said the UK would “suffer enormously” without the income but he accepted the wish for independence was a “natural desire”.
Now almost 96, Lord Healey of Riddlesden, said: “I think they [Westminster politicians] are concerned about Scotland taking the oil, I think they are worried stiff about it.
“I think we would suffer enormously if the income from Scottish oil stopped but if the Scots want it [independence], they should have it and we would just need to adjust but I would think Scotland could survive perfectly well, economically, if it was independent. Yes, I would think so…with the oil.”..

...And he said: “I think we did underplay the value of the oil to the country because of the threat of nationalism but that was mainly down to Thatcher.

http://legacy.holyrood.com/2013/05/westminster-fears-losing-scotlands-oil-money/

The link I provided you with was to show an overall picture. Not the one you keep painting as some sort of 'proof' that because oil prices are low at the moment. That this is a cast iron reason why Scotland would never afford FFA or independence. You, nor Hamish or anyone else can predict what oil prices will be, months, years down the line. And there is some confusion as to numbers/estimates and vague non-identified figures allude to in GERS actually are.

The fact is, that a former Chancellor admits that routinely 'underplaying' the value of oil was used to 'diffuse nationalism'. It's not hard to fast forward to today and assume the same is true. Especially since both Alistair Darling and George Osborne ( present and former Chancellors ) were prime opponents, in diffusing the 'threat of nationalism' once again very recently. Oil was wall to wall in newpapers being 'downplayed' even when prices were high, reaching a cresendo in the weeks/days before the referendum ( along with just about everything else Scotland has economically ).

That oil prices have fallen, is purely a happy coincidence for commentators and Labour/Lib Dem MP's in Scotland with this election coming up. Prices have fallen before, and risen again, then fallen etc. That's what happens with oil prices. That in itself, isn't news to anyone.

That even is to give some credence that the Scottish economy depends on it utterly and totally.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

So anyway....

Back to reality.

Just 3.4% of “No” voters saw “The Vow” as the main motivation for their decision.

The new research by the Centre on Constitutional Change found the biggest factor identified by opponents of independence in making their decision was “feeling British/believe in the Union”, cited by 29.5%.

Other factors highlighted included:
“Too many unanswered questions” (27.8%)
“Independence would make Scotland worse off” (26.3%)
“Wanted to vote Yes but it seemed too risky” (5.3%)

The issue of ‘more powers’ is not cited as the main reason for voting No.

“However, Yes voters are convinced it caused a loss of nerve leading to support for the Union.”

Her colleague Dr Rob Johns, of the University of Essex, added: “The trajectory of opinion during the campaign suggests that the drift back to No predated the famous ‘Vow’ on the Daily Record’s front cover.

“It is not unusual for a misleading narrative to develop about what swung an election or referendum. According to our data, anyone who thinks ‘it was the Vow wot won it’ is exaggerating, to say the least.

http://www.unitedagainstseparation.uk/no-fairly-won-referendum/

And....

Prof Brian Ashcroft, of the Fraser of Allander Institue at Strathclyde University described the government’s research as “partial at best and dishonest at worst” and an example of the “politicisation of the Scottish civil service”.

Impartial experts with the Scottish Parliament Information Centre (SPICe) said the government’s analysis of full fiscal autonomy – where Scotland raises what it spends – did not appear to take into account that the economy would start from a different point.

This meant either the government had included Barnett in its modelling, or failed to explain what cuts, tax cuts or extra borrowing was needed.

Labour claims voters “must be told the truth”. If has now written to Sir Andrew Dilnot, chairman of the UK Statistics Authority, drawing his attention to “what appears to be a significant breach” of the authority’s code of practice by the Scottish Government.

Ms Dugdale challenged First Minister Nicola Sturgeon yesterday claiming that without the block grant Scotland would be £7.6billion worse off.
“It’s clear that when the numbers don’t add, this first minister makes them up anyway,” she said.

https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/news/politics/holyrood/532395/snp-demand-full-fiscal-autonomy-based-fiddled-figures/

Whoops...

Under full fiscal autonomy Scotland would receive £7.6bn a year less than it does today.

Ouch. That'll take a bite out of the public sector and benefits spend....