Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

Tromking

Generali wrote: »

It's because he knows full well the impact of FFA on Scotland with the current oil price.

Yes, a point Andrew Neil made very well during the interview.
Why the SNP and their supporters just don`t admit that, is just plain daft.

Generali

Tromking wrote: »

Yes, a point Andrew Neil made very well during the interview.
Why the SNP and their supporters just don`t admit that, is just plain daft.

It is a bit mad. It's like if they ignore the single biggest issue facing the Scottish economy today then the problem will simply disappear.

There are a lot of issues brought up by this. The assumption has always been that Scotland would be running a budget surplus. If FFA came in tomorrow there'd be a deficit. How would that be addressed: cut spending, increase taxes or borrow to make up the difference? (Local/regional/state Governments regularly borrow money in many countries). Or would the expectation be that the rest of the UK would simply make uo the difference, a sort of one-way FFA where the Scottish keep any surplus but any deficit is made good by the UK government. Where does this leave the SWF? Or the subsidies for uneconomic industries like renewable power?

If the SNP won't address this stuff then it's very hard to take them seriously at all.

.string.

Generali wrote:

It is a bit mad. It's like if they ignore the single biggest issue facing the Scottish economy today then the problem will simply disappear.

There are a lot of issues brought up by this. The assumption has always been that Scotland would be running a budget surplus. If FFA came in tomorrow there'd be a deficit. How would that be addressed: cut spending, increase taxes or borrow to make up the difference? (Local/regional/state Governments regularly borrow money in many countries). Or would the expectation be that the rest of the UK would simply make uo the difference, a sort of one-way FFA where the Scottish keep any surplus but any deficit is made good by the UK government. Where does this leave the SWF? Or the subsidies for uneconomic industries like renewable power?

If the SNP won't address this stuff then it's very hard to take them seriously at all.

Yes it is difficult to take them seriously; they have made a basic error in making FFA their "going-in position" since it is so clearly ridiculous that it can be easily demolished and thus discredits anything they may claim in the future as likely to be a strawman position and open for negotiating down. Not a good position to be in. But I guess they fell prey to their own spin.

I always thought them a bit daft; it now appears I have overestimated them.

Of course they are playing this "we wuz robbed" theme song for all they are worth; that may explain it.

Generali

The Guardian puts the figures very succinctly:

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/jan/08/nicola-sturgeon-denies-oil-price-plunge-harm-scotland

Scottish government revenue and spending estimates showed that in 2012-13, overall government spending in Scotland reached £65bn, while the onshore economy – excluding North Sea revenues – raised £47.6bn in tax, £17.4bn less than was spent.

North Sea taxes raised £5.5bn that year, with the rest supplemented by UK taxation and borrowing but with Brent crude as low as $50 a barrel, this year’s oil revenues will be a fraction of that sum.

Hopefully the Scottish electorate will realise the mess that Scotland's finances would be in before it's too late.

.string.

I think the process is probably this

o Ask and expect denial of FFA by Westminster
o Whine like crazy about the wicked English for denying the SNP the Magic Financial Levers
o Allow themselves to be "forced" to accept a lesser form of Devolution than FFA, conditional upon it being with a major plank of that settlement the help that the UK can provided to Scotland (being part of the UK) if it ran into trouble
o Run deliberately into trouble, having spent all the budget on infrastructure projects supporting a cost-free move to Independence and "valiantly" providing luxury vote-winning welfare services but leaving lesser priority tasks undone, thereby incurring large debts, while moaning "It would have been all OK if we had only had FFA as we asked because we, the SNP, are such brilliant economists".
o Claim the extra money from the UK on the basis that the UK had promised them support should they run into problems
o Refuse to change the Devolution Package due to the fact it needs both UK and Scottish Government Approval
o Repeat the above for as long as they can get away with it.

I'd like to think that the UK Government will be wise to such a tactic and not make the mistake of trusting the SNP one single inch.

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

?????? I presume you mean this link:
http://legacy.holyrood.com/2013/05/westminster-fears-losing-scotlands-oil-money/

which reports on an interview with Healey where he is claimed to have said "I think we did underplay the value of the oil to the country".

Which country do you think that refers to (it is the UK from the context by the way)?

And from that single link you claim to have given documentary proof of what exactly? Proof that it was the statistics that were not correct or that the spin put on them was not up front? Proof that the benefit to an independent Scotland was hidden? Proof that the importance of the income from oil to the UK was hidden?

You have a long way to go before you can claim proof that Treasury figures are all cooked.

There must be something else, surely, if you have documentary proof that treasury finance figures are all suspect.

McCrone report, and Dennis Healy. Dennis was reported in all the the newspapers too. You kind of like newspaper articles and what they 'prove' when it suits I think. Not so much when you don't like what they're reporting. McCrone was a Freedom of information request direct to/from the Treasury.

Keep up.

Shakethedisease

I've read all about SNP supporters in denial.. but oh boy do some above take the biscuit. You all still think the Tories will be in charge after May 7th. Able to deny the SNP ( ie the MP's Scots choose a 'say').

Time to wake up now. There's a 90% chance of a hung parliament. With the SNP looking like being the third largest party in the UK. I don't really think any of you above have actually taken in yet what that means at all.

I'd like to think that the UK Government will be wise to such a tactic and not make the mistake of trusting the SNP one single inch.

If the polls play out string, the SNP will be having a fair old say in UK government in 6 weeks time. It might be good to start facing up to democratic realities. Generali should really have posted that head in sand pic for a few others ( including himself ) instead of me. As things stand.. Generali in fact doesn't seem to have moved on past Sept 18th as yet. Is time you all did really...

MumOf2

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Time to wake up now. There's a 90% chance of a hung parliament. With the SNP looking like being the third largest party in the UK. I don't really think any of you above have actually taken in yet what that actually means.

Oh we have, I can assure you - it would be a nightmare from which there would be no waking while the UK economy crashes and burns under a pile of Labour and SNP financial ineptitude.


The country which has worked so hard to recover from the last Labour mess will be a laughing stock if it consigns itself to five years of mismanagement.


The effects of the 2008 crash will seem positively benign in comparison to where we'll be in 2020 following a Labour/SNP government.

Shakethedisease

MumOf2 wrote: »

Oh we have, I can assure you - it would be a nightmare from which there would be no waking while the UK economy crashes and burns under a pile of Labour and SNP financial ineptitude.


The country which has worked so hard to recover from the last Labour mess will be a laughing stock if it consigns itself to five years of mismanagement.


The effects of the 2008 crash will seem positively benign in comparison to where we'll be in 2020 following a Labour/SNP government.

Yes, I can remember how enthusiastic you were about the SNP. I won't be replying to any more of your posts ( since moderators saw the need to remove some of your last 'replies' to me in the last thread I won't be engaging further )... But Labour/SNP, you might want to at least prepare for the possibility. Things may change though.

Generali

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Generali in fact doesn't seem to have moved on past Sept 18th as yet. Is time you all did really...

Far from it. I'm looking at the impact of a Lab/SNP alliance and the impact on Scotland of FFA.

Scotland would be FUBAR'd by any measure I can see. What's Plan B for the SNP I wonder. Surely they're not stupid enough to go through with their own campaign promise given that it would be economic suicide.

Is FFA still a central plank of the SNP's economic policy? I haven't seen any announcement to the contrary. Has the SNP said how they are going to fill the massive hole at the centre of Scotland's finances that would result from this? Given that they plan to put up the minimum wage by £2/hr and reverse austerity, the gap between spending and taxation is set to grow even wider.

Better hope this mess in Yemen blows up.