Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

Generali

Shakethedisease wrote: »

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

May 2013http://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.

Well that's the worst part for the fantasists: your spread sheet doesn't include the impact of oil prices falling off a cliff. We won't see that come into the published figures for a little while yet but they'll make grim reading when they do/

Of course you'll 'do a Sturgeon' and make up some different numbers that suit you better. The fact is that when the single export on which an economy and Government revenues are entirely dependent upon halves in price that country is in a mess.

You don't seem that interested in where the money for the fantasy SWF would have come from. Clearly having run a cumulative deficit of £50bn since 1980 would have made it impossible to create one.

Australia has a very nice SWF because she spent less than she taxed over many years.

Shakethedisease

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

So anyway....

Back to reality.

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

And....


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....

Hmmm do you know who Professor Ashcroft is married to ? Her name is Wendy Alexander. Former Labour First Minister, and Labour MP's Douglas's sister ?

Plus he doesn't like Devo-Max.. it seems for some reason during the referendum, he said that independence would be better than Devo-Max options.. but I don't think he meant to.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QuJyPnJ6Ghc

I also don't think he can be viewed as part of a group of "Impartial experts"... The press piece that's gone out all over the papers today should really have mentioned who he is, if they're going to quote him directly. Social media thankfully, corrected that oversight within minutes for those who access it.

As for the Vow ? Yes, taken in insolation in that last week of the referendum it probably wouldn't have changed many votes. However it wasn't made in isolation. It was more likely that, coupled the complete **** storm that came Scotland's way re headlines and tv coverage ( all negative ), which 'helped' things along to a No vote.

But, it was still promised to all Scots after a No vote nonetheless. So makes little difference now. You can't have Prime Ministers, ex Prime Ministers and party leaders all promising stuff. Then going back on it. Much too late for that.

Shakethedisease

Generali wrote: »

Well that's the worst part for the fantasists: your spread sheet doesn't include the impact of oil prices falling off a cliff. We won't see that come into the published figures for a little while yet but they'll make grim reading when they do/

Of course you'll 'do a Sturgeon' and make up some different numbers that suit you better. The fact is that when the single export on which an economy and Government revenues are entirely dependent upon halves in price that country is in a mess.

You don't seem that interested in where the money for the fantasy SWF would have come from. Clearly having run a cumulative deficit of £50bn since 1980 would have made it impossible to create one.

Dennis Healy was lying then ? And oil prices haven't fallen off a cliff any time since 1980 ? Nor ever risen again after they did ? If you say so. Must be true then.

Australia has a very nice SWF because she spent less than she taxed over many years.

Yes, must be nice to be able to make the right economic decisions for one's own specific economic needs. I can see how much you value being able to do so in Australia..

Generali

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Dennis Healy was lying then ? And oil prices haven't fallen off a cliff any time since 1980 ? Nor ever risen again after they did ? If you say so. Must be true then.

Yes, must be nice to be able to make the right economic decisions for one's own specific economic needs. I can see how much you value being able to do so in Australia..

Dennis Healy was wrong. Scotland, had it been a separate entity, would have run a massive cumulative deficit over the past 35 years.

What would you like to have seen spending slashed on? The choice is effectively welfare, health or education BTW as that makes up by far the greater part of Scotland's spending.

Australia made some pretty tough decisions in order to get to a position to have the Future Fund in place, ones that Scotland seems wholly unprepared to take given the massive opposition to any form of moderation of expenditure at all.

Shakethedisease

Generali wrote: »

Dennis Healy was wrong.

An ex Chancellor of the Exchequer says that the UK government deliberately unplayed the value of oil to the economy because of the 'threat of nationalism' .. then went on to say that Westminster was running scared of losing it.. and you say he's just 'wrong' ? Ok.

Scotland, had it been a separate entity, would have run a massive cumulative deficit over the past 35 years.

Well that would have depended when you're basing when independence had occurred wouldn't it..

The eighteen-page report focused on the likely effects of North Sea oil revenue on the economic viability of an independent Scotland. Professor McCrone predicted that North sea oil revenue would make an independent Scotland "as rich as Switzerland", giving the country a large tax surplus, on such a scale as to be "embarrassing". [1] He also surmised that this surplus revenue would make the Scottish pound the hardest currency in Europe "with the exception of the Norwegian kronor"...

...The document was completed in early 1974, just prior to the February 1974 general election, which produced a 'hung parliament' with Harold Wilson as Prime Minister. Another general election was called for October 1974, which gave the Labour party a slim majority in Westminster, whilst the SNP recorded 30% of the Scottish vote, their best ever result at that time...

...In 1975, a year after Professor McCrone had written his report, civil servants met in London to discuss its implications. They concluded that his findings had been accurate, and that the average income in Scotland would increase by up to 30% per head if the country became an independent state. They also concluded that Scotland's "economic problems would disappear", and it would become "the Kuwait of the Western world"...

...The report was classified as 'secret' by civil servants at the time, and successive UK Governments kept it so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCrone_report

I guess it was just kept secret by successive governments for Scotland's own good was it ? But that was then, and this is now. However, it does perhaps show that Treasury figures regarding and provided to Scotland can't really be trusted to tell the whole truth all of the time. Dennis Healy, and that report being buried are established facts. Not from 'fantasists' but from the horse's mouth.

What would you like to have seen spending slashed on? The choice is effectively welfare, health or education BTW as that makes up by far the greater part of Scotland's spending.

That depends solely on where you're starting your fictional independence 'timeline' from in the last 35 years ?

Australia made some pretty tough decisions in order to get to a position to have the Future Fund in place, ones that Scotland seems wholly unprepared to take given the massive opposition to any form of moderation of expenditure at all.

Australia had the options there to make pretty tough decisions on it's own behalf. The UK as a whole is making tough decisions too, but certainly in light of things like the latest BBC leak over who those decisions hit hardest. Some feel a different course of action may be in order both UK wide, and in Scotland.

Generali

Shakethedisease wrote: »

That depends solely on where you're starting your fictional independence 'timeline' from in the last 35 years ?

Do try to keep up with your own arguments.

I keep hearing that if Scotland had been independent whilst the oil was being pumped she would have some huge SWF. Your own figures show that Scotland has overspent by £50,000,000,000 in the time that most of the oil so far has been drilled. What do you think that Scottish people would have not spent money on?

Given that most of the money the British Government spends in Scotland is on welfare, health and education, which would you have liked to have seen cut for your mythical SWF?

The fact is that Scottish people, not unreasonably, much prefer consuming Government services than paying for them. Unfortunately for Scotland, going it alone whether fiscally or entirely would mean having to pony up for the services she consumes.

skintmacflint

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Hmmm do you know who Professor Ashcroft is married to ? Her name is Wendy Alexander. Former Labour First Minister, and Labour MP's Douglas's sister ?

Plus he doesn't like Devo-Max.. it seems for some reason during the referendum, he said that independence would be better than Devo-Max options.. but I don't think he meant to.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QuJyPnJ6Ghc

I also don't think he can be viewed as part of a group of "Impartial experts"... The press piece that's gone out all over the papers today should really have mentioned who he is, if they're going to quote him directly. Social media thankfully, corrected that oversight within minutes for those who access it.

As for the Vow ? Yes, taken in insolation in that last week of the referendum it probably wouldn't have changed many votes. However it wasn't made in isolation. It was more likely that, coupled the complete **** storm that came Scotland's way re headlines and tv coverage ( all negative ), which 'helped' things along to a No vote.

But, it was still promised to all Scots after a No vote nonetheless. So makes little difference now. You can't have Prime Ministers, ex Prime Ministers and party leaders all promising stuff. Then going back on it. Much too late for that.

Don't agree because he's married to a Wendy Alexander, he still can't have his own professional view or opinion. Or that he is wrong. Many couples/ families were split down the middle over the Yes/No question. Nor not being keen on Devo Max , means he's biased or wrong. Otherwise the same logic must apply to any reports on Business for Scotland, or WOS etc, neither of whom were impartial .

As for the Vow, certainly didn't have any effect on any No voter I know, nor any of the postal voters. It's a bit much for SNP to be stating they're representing the majority with their exaggerated interpretation , without any hard info to back up their assertion. If SNP had firm facts on this being correct, think the info would be out there for sure.

Edit - I don't agree historic polling on Devo Max proves it either, as I tend to think most of those switched from that preference to opting for full independence over the past 2 years.

kabayiri

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

So anyway....

Back to reality.

....

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....

Oh stop it Mr Hamish Ferrero Rocher, you and your pesky facts are spoiling us.


On a plus note, that level of cuts would mean private firms stepping in to fill the gap left. Lovely jubblee

Shakethedisease

Generali wrote: »

Do try to keep up with your own arguments.

I'm actually trying to keep up with yours. You said that had Scotland been independent for the last 33 years it would've been a basketcase economy..

I was questioning the trustworthyness of those figures.and where they come from given historical 'truths' that have emerged. Most especially when the SNP look like they might do well at the ballot box.

I keep hearing that if Scotland had been independent whilst the oil was being pumped she would have some huge SWF. Your own figures show that Scotland has overspent by £50,000,000,000 in the time that most of the oil so far has been drilled. What do you think that Scottish people would have not spent money on?

Where do you keep 'hearing' that from ? So you genuinely believe if Scotland had gone indepedent 33 years ago, that she would have overspent by £50,000,000,000.. on a population of 5 just million. Even though she would've taken every penny of taxation from every barrel of oil for the last 33 years ? Is that what you really think as an economist.. and that McCrone and Healy were wrong ?

Given that most of the money the British Government spends in Scotland is on welfare, health and education, which would you have liked to have seen cut for your mythical SWF?

Your entire argument is mythical.

The fact is that Scottish people, not unreasonably, much prefer consuming Government services than paying for them. Unfortunately for Scotland, going it alone whether fiscally or entirely would mean having to pony up for the services she consumes.

And the above is just thinly veiled bigotry I'm afraid. Otherwise the referendum result would've been a resounding 99.9% for No if all Scots felt that way. Mabye Scots like Hamish prefer to be 'consuming' off the UK Government forever more.. but a lot of us aren't too keen on it and would like to change that.

:- the above isn't an actually endorsement of your preconceived idea of all Scots take, take, taking ( copyright UKIP ) rather than looking after themselves btw. I disagree with you.

Shakethedisease

skintmacflint wrote: »

Don't agree because he's married to a Wendy Alexander, he still can't have his own professional view or opinion. Or that he is wrong. Many couples/ families were split down the middle over the Yes/No question. Nor not being keen on Devo Max , means he's biased or wrong. Otherwise the same logic must apply to any reports on Business for Scotland, or WOS etc, neither of whom were impartial .

I don't dare quote WOS or Business for Scotland here ( or indeed any of the more pro-indy sites ), for reason's I've already outlined. I don't really mind where Ashcroft comes down on the debate. But he certainly shouldn't be framed as being completely 'impartial' when given media space. If it was Nicola's husband, or Stewart Hosie's sister.. You can be sure it would've been very strongly highlighted. Double standards you have to admit ?

I also think that those that go on dramatically about 'families being split, and couples being split' are over egging the pudding. In my own opinion, and knowing a lot of No voters socially, and within my own extended family. Most of us voted in the ref, either celebrated or were disappointed afterwards.. then just got on with general day to day lives. The only people I ever hear of constantly going on about these 'deep divisions' are those who seek to benefit from repeating it.. ie those who don't want the SNP to do well, and want to pin something on them blamewise.

Do you know personally any couples or families who split up over it ?

As for the Vow, certainly didn't have any effect on any No voter I know, nor any of the postal voters. It's a bit much for SNP to be stating they're representing the majority with their exaggerated interpretation , without any hard info to back up their assertion. If SNP had firm facts on this being correct, think the info would be out there for sure.

It doesn't matter what 'effect' it had or not. It was promised/vowed. It now needs to be delivered.

Edit - I don't agree historic polling on Devo Max proves it either, as I tend to think most of those switched from that preference to opting for full independence over the past 2 years.

Well you just keep thinking that if it makes you feel better.