Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

Leanne1812

elantan wrote: »

You've only had them for a few days ... Imagine being told your anti English for years ... And your of the anyone but England camp ... We passed stale with that one a LONG time ago, and yet it still gets wheeled out

And for the record I am most definitely not anti English as that would mean I would be hating myself

It is tiring isn't it? I'd hate my hubby & inlaws if I was anti English. A divorce would be on the cards I think :rotfl:

And I'd also hate 50% of my son. It's just not on!

elantan

This picture was taken tonight .... not pre referendum , tonight Wednesday 4th February 2015 .... i know of three meetings that are going on tomorrow ... and thats in my local area ... there are over 100 expected at each

elantan

Leanne1812 wrote: »

It is tiring isn't it? I'd hate my hubby & inlaws if I was anti English. A divorce would be on the cards I think :rotfl:

And I'd also hate 50% of my son. It's just not on!

Aye ... the amount of times myself and others have been accused of it ... and yet when i ask them to prove it they cant ... strange that

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

zagubov wrote: »

I notice you got in the "too wee" AND the "too stupid" insults in but left out the too poor one. Not that that's a thing.;)

That little nationalist meme is particularly tired Zag, it's not an insult to point out the truth.....

Small countries are often poorer, less influential, have fewer resources, and can be economically weaker and less financially stable than bigger ones.

The nationalist time machine is a fantasy, reality starts from today, with todays tax take, todays oil prices, todays spending, and todays savage deficit that is much larger for Scotland as a % of GDP than it is for the UK.

If we'd chosen independence then at todays oil prices Scotland would be bankrupt in a year and going cap-in-hand to the IMF.

No country can sustain a 12%+ of GDP and nearly 25% of government spending annual deficit, yet that's what Scotland would be looking at this year with current oil prices.

That's not an insult or a dig about being 'too poor', it's a cold, hard fact that leads to some really uncomfortable truths that I never see any of you indy minded people address.

The reactions are invariably either smarmy comments about 'too wee, too poor, too stupid', or else complete straw man arguments like 'oil prices might go up again' or 'other wee countries manage it'.

The subsidy from the rUK to Scotland this year is likely to reach record high levels. Yet the indy crowd are still running around telling utter lies that Scotland would be better off financially separating from the UK.

And deluding themselves that we could manage to keep anything like the same level of social spending and benefits if it weren't for the fact that for every £1 we send to Westminster this year, Westminster will send us back £1.25!!!

Scotland should be thanking it's lucky stars the No campaign won, as we have narrowly escaped economic disaster.

elantan

Tbh i dont really hold much belief in polls ... i reckon we will find out on May 8th ... however, i hope the SNP do not become complacent ... i doubt it very much though as i know they will be working their backsides off ... our candidate that will be standing for the SNP was announced today... i know of 4 of the candidates that were standing ... i'm sure many people will back her and she will get all the support she needs

elantan

If we chose independence we wouldnt be independant till 2016 ... i'm sure the oil prices will have rebounded by then ... kinda like just now ... they are on the up ... as far as i am aware the UK is kinda skint as well ... or are we doing exceptionally great and have no debt ?

Shakethedisease

Leanne1812 wrote: »

It is tiring isn't it? I'd hate my hubby & inlaws if I was anti English. A divorce would be on the cards I think :rotfl:

And I'd also hate 50% of my son. It's just not on!

Divorce would be on the cards here as well.. and three of my kids disowned. My husband now a proud card carrying member of the SNP as well :eek: ( He's been on a bit of a journey from his 'hate that fat git Salmond days' lol )..

Leanne1812

Hamish, we all know we 'get' more spend per person in Scotland. What I'd ask you to look into is how much do we really get back compared to what we put in. The way I understand it is quite creative accounting is used to make it appear we put x amount into the pot yet get substantially more back. There's quite a few billion that comes under the amount the UK spends on our behalf. No breakdown however of where & what it is spent on. Where, exactly does this money go? How do we get detailed figures to tell us Scotland is getting these billions spent here or is it elsewhere? If you can't explain this to me then I shall have no choice but to continue to believe that we are not subsidised.

Generali

Leanne1812 wrote: »

Hamish, we all know we 'get' more spend per person in Scotland. What I'd ask you to look into is how much do we really get back compared to what we put in. The way I understand it is quite creative accounting is used to make it appear we put x amount into the pot yet get substantially more back. There's quite a few billion that comes under the amount the UK spends on our behalf. No breakdown however of where & what it is spent on. Where, exactly does this money go? How do we get detailed figures to tell us Scotland is getting these billions spent here or is it elsewhere? If you can't explain this to me then I shall have no choice but to continue to believe that we are not subsidised.

Here's one pretty comprehensive whilst simple look at things:

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-28879267

you can revise the oil revenue figure down quite substantially as a result of the falls in the oil price. As the article says, the oil price tends to be volatile so the current lows should be balanced against current highs.

However you should bear in mind that the current oil price looks a lot more like the long term trend than prices of $100+. However, analysts who study the oil price for a living have made persuasive cases of numbers between $40/bbl and $200/bbl.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Leanne1812 wrote: »

What I'd ask you to look into is how much do we really get back compared to what we put in.

Why not just ask the SNP controlled Scottish Government?

Here are their figures for 2012/13.....

In 2012-13, total Scottish non-North Sea public sector revenue was estimated at £47.6 billion.

When an illustrative geographical share of North Sea revenue is included, total Scottish public sector revenue was estimated at £53.1 billion.

In 2012-13, total public sector expenditure for the benefit of Scotland by the UK Government, Scottish Government and all other parts of the public sector, plus a per capita share of UK debt interest payments, was £65.2 billion.

In 2012-13, Scotland’s estimated net fiscal balance was a deficit of £17.6 billion (14.0% of GDP) when excluding North Sea revenue, or a deficit of £12.1 billion (8.3% of GDP) when a geographical share of North Sea revenue is included.

But the problem is, those figures are 2 years out of date.

Scotland generated circa £8bn in oil revenue that year, based on geographic share, which this year is likely to fall to £1.5bn.

That's a £6.5bn additional to the deficit, which was already £12.1 bn.

That leaves an estimated deficit of £18.6bn this year, which is between 25% and 30% of government spending on Scotland, and that spending is the SNP Government's own figures...

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2014/03/7888