Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

ruggedtoast

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Good luck with that EU referendum, and all those lovely exports, balance of trade deficits, banks leaving in droves and oddles of trade treaties... down the pan.

And no, I don't suppose you'll be changing your mind anytime soon either. Why should I then ?

Because you lost.

Shakethedisease

Generali wrote: »

Your blogger friend seems to have found differences of approximately 0.02% in the way spending is calculated on a net basis according to the table at the bottom.

Of course Labour and the Tories are trying to gain votes from the SNP.......just like they are from every other party! It's how a General Election works, you try to get people that plan to vote for other parties to vote for you.

Which one, I quoted from three of them ? And what's wrong with allocating gdp to 'country of origin' or 'region of origin' in terms of exports and things like that ? You're side-stepping all the important stuff ( ie the way things are done/worked out ) in order to talk in %'s on the end sums.

As for the posters going round..and this goes for Labour as well as the Tories..

Even by the standards of the Conservative and Unionist (sic) party this is an impressively stupid poster. Do they really want to encourage Scots to vote for the SNP? Evidently they do...

This poster reminds us of this. Sure, it’s aimed at English voters but it will leach into Scotland too. And here it tells Scots to vote for the Nationalists. Let us count some of the ways in which it does so:
1. Vote SNP and they’ll be in government!
2. We, the Conservatives, are afraid of the SNP. (Subliminal message to Scots: so you know what to do, don’t you?)
3. And most importantly, it frames the election as a battle between Scotland and England in which the latter is menaced by the former. It pits the two largest parts of the Union against one another. Which, of course, is exactly how the SNP likes it; precisely how the SNP sees the election – and the future of Britain – too.
The Scottish Nationalists will not mind the Tories stoking the fires of English nationalism. By ‘not mind’ I mean, of course, that they will be delighted. Yet again, a notionally Unionist party is helping the Nationalists achieve their ambitions.

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/01/conservative-central-office-appear-to-be-working-for-the-snp/

More please !

elantan

I know Alex Salmond must irritate many English voters (he annoys plenty of Scottish ones too) but putting up with that – or quietly ignoring it – is one of the prices of Union. If that means actually thinking about the Union rather than simply taking it for granted then, well, I am afraid it is time people in England started to think about it. Especially those people who claim to value it.


Taken from that Spectator link you posted Shake.

I wonder how many times it is mentioned that David Cameron irritates many including the Scots not just the English

Shakethedisease

skintmacflint wrote: »

Is that you Alex, or Nicola , posting under an alias on MSE?

In reply to your question , Labour as a strategic vote tbh. Not overly happy about this , but needs must in the current circumstances. . Feel free to rip away, I won't take it personally.

Didn't realise you were such a sensitive soul, and took general observations about a political party as a personal insult, considering the negative comments you post about the Red Tories, etc But there you go, rant ahead.

Ha ha if I took things personally I'd have left this forum and threads like these running screaming years ago.

Labour... yes, I thought so.

Older, more traditional Labour voter, who still refers to the SNP as Tartan Tories, never having got over 1979 and hates them with a vengence. Still has vague hopes that Labour will return to it's socialist/Clydeside-esque roots someday.. so keep ( reluctantly ) voting for them, because they 'always have' so pretend it's 'strategic'.

Unless you don't live in Scotland any more.. in which case it's 'the best of a bad bunch'.

Those polls, Labour was behind in every single age group except for the over 65's ! Isn't that interesting. But anyway, thanks for letting us know. It levels the mud-slinging a bit.;)

.string.

Re - The Obfuscation Document

It takes a while to get one’s head around what is being said because it is so full of, well - Obfuscation, and prejudice, so Shakey is right on that one. The fog of bias shines out of every sentence.

However, persevering, a number of points could be mentioned but let’s just deal with a few.

1 A useful top-level comparison of the net result, provided by Generali, can be gained from Chapter 5 - Box 5.4 of:http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Statistics/Browse/Economy/GERS/GERS2014xls
Generali also kindly provided some more insight in:
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-28879267
These give data relevant to 2013, the former also for previous years.

Of interest in Box 5.4 is the balance of accounts which shows the overspending by the SNP Government. I wonder who is paying for that deficit.That self imposed deficit is a significant factor in any budget balancing act.

2 The Obfuscation Document, kindly provided by Shakey, gives an estimate based on 2006 or before data.
http://www.siol-nan-gaidheal.org/obfuscation.htm
As Generali has also pointed out, the differences in balances are in the noise and in any case they pale into inconsequence when year to year differences are looked at and are certainly not the situation of 2013 or last year (when the YES Conpaign was in full swing) or this year come to that.


3 In the Obfuscation document, Table 12 shows (Green and Blue Columns) a derived listing of the revenues available to the UK and Scottish regions).

The green listing is for the whole of the UK, not just England so naturally it includes any income which the author also attributes to Scotland. Some people tend to forget that Scotland is still in the UK.

So the figures for Spirits for the UK included the “Scottish Whisky” amount. I know whisky is dear to the heart of every Scot, so I hope this starts to explain Leanne’s concern.

“England” is not stealing Scottish Whisky. As has been pointed out not all Whisky is a pure Scottish product, the cost elements relating to distribution are often in England.

4. Without trying to go into the detail of every claim, I’ll just make the very simple point that subsidies to Scotland, including preferential defence contracts for example, will show up as increased Scottish contribution to the tax take, so unless that is factored into the comparative tax accounting, no easy comparison can be made.

In summary I don’t think the Obfuscation document made any relevant case at all for Scotland over-contributing to the UK economy and being therefore somehow cheated as a result. It should be kept in the same bookcase as the wee blue book.

But even supposing Scotland was doing well and was a net contributor, it would be a sign of favoured status within the Union rather than of being done down by it. An aside – refer back to the recent UK’s extra payments to the EU to see how the EU deals with this type of thing – EU members pay a larger contribution.

Shakethedisease

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Because you lost.

..A referendum. Not a forthcoming General Election. Political parties don't disband because they lose things.

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

Re - The Obfuscation Document

It takes a while to get one’s head around what is being said because it is so full of, well - Obfuscation, and prejudice, so Shakey is right on that one. The fog of bias shines out of every sentence.

However, persevering, a number of points could be mentioned but let’s just deal with a few.

1 A useful top-level comparison of the net result, provided by Generali, can be gained from Chapter 5 - Box 5.4 of:http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Statistics/Browse/Economy/GERS/GERS2014xls
Generali also kindly provided some more insight in:
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-28879267
These give data relevant to 2013, the former also for previous years.

Of interest in Box 5.4 is the balance of accounts which shows the overspending by the SNP Government. I wonder who is paying for that deficit.That self imposed deficit is a significant factor in any budget balancing act.

2 The Obfuscation Document, kindly provided by Shakey, gives an estimate based on 2006 or before data.
http://www.siol-nan-gaidheal.org/obfuscation.htm
As Generali has also pointed out, the differences in balances are in the noise and in any case they pale into inconsequence when year to year differences are looked at and are certainly not the situation of 2013 or last year (when the YES Conpaign was in full swing) or this year come to that.


3 In the Obfuscation document, Table 12 shows (Green and Blue Columns) a derived listing of the revenues available to the UK and Scottish regions).

The green listing is for the whole of the UK, not just England so naturally it includes any income which the author also attributes to Scotland. Some people tend to forget that Scotland is still in the UK.

So the figures for Spirits for the UK included the “Scottish Whisky” amount. I know whisky is dear to the heart of every Scot, so I hope this starts to explain Leanne’s concern.

“England” is not stealing Scottish Whisky. As has been pointed out not all Whisky is a pure Scottish product, the cost elements relating to distribution are often in England.

4. Without trying to go into the detail of every claim, I’ll just make the very simple point that subsidies to Scotland, including preferential defence contracts for example, will show up as increased Scottish contribution to the tax take, so unless that is factored into the comparative tax accounting, no easy comparison can be made.

In summary I don’t think the Obfuscation document made any relevant case at all for Scotland over-contributing to the UK economy and being therefore somehow cheated as a result. It should be kept in the same bookcase as the wee blue book.

But even supposing Scotland was doing well and was a net contributor, it would be a sign of favoured status within the Union rather than of being done down by it. An aside – refer back to the recent UK’s extra payments to the EU to see how the EU deals with this type of thing – EU members pay a larger contribution.

Just a quick point as it's school run time.. but Scotch whisky can't actually be called Scotch whisky unless it's a pure scottish product.

As of 23 November 2009, the Scotch Whisky Regulations 2009 (SWR) define and regulate the production, labelling, packaging as well as the advertising of Scotch whisky in the United Kingdom. They replace previous regulations that focused solely on production. International trade agreements have the effect of making some provisions of the SWR apply in various other countries as well as in the UK. The SWR define "Scotch whisky" as whisky that is:[1][3]

• Produced at a distillery in Scotland from water and malted barley (to which only whole grains of other cereals may be added) all of which have been:
  • Processed at that distillery into a mash
  • Converted at that distillery to a fermentable substrate only by endogenous enzyme systems
  • Fermented at that distillery only by adding yeast
  • Distilled at an alcoholic strength by volume of less than 94.8% (190 US proof)
• Wholly matured in an excise warehouse in Scotland in oak casks of a capacity not exceeding 700 litres (185 US gal; 154 imp gal) for at least three years
• Retaining the colour, aroma, and taste of the raw materials used in, and the method of, its production and maturation
• Containing no added substances, other than water and plain (E150A) caramel colouring
• Comprising a minimum alcoholic strength by volume of 40% (80 US proof)

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

.string.

Shakethedisease wrote:

Just a quick point as it's school run time.. but Scotch whisky can't actually be called Scotch whisky unless it's a pure scottish product.


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

It's a deflection of course, from less serious matters, but you asked for it.

English barley supplied to Scotch whisky distilleries

Actually I prefer Canadian Whisky, Black Velvet. Very Smooth.

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

It's a deflection of course, from less serious matters, but you asked for it.

English barley supplied to Scotch whisky distilleries

Actually I prefer Canadian Whisky, Black Velvet. Very Smooth.

The very smell of the stuff makes me want to heave..:p

And further to your post, if it's made ( from Scottish water), distilled and matured in Scotland, then it's Scotch whisky.

So in that case when one is working out how much it provides in GDP or whatever... then it shouldn't really in the face of it be credited as an English export from Portsmouth. Actually neither should all VAT, Corp tax, alcohol duties as well as tax and NHS contributions from the 43,000 employees in Scotland.. which are also listed as English due to HQ locations and the way tax is gathered. Same goes for Supermarkets and other industries.

I think the point I am driving at, is that there is a difference between how things are calculated now... and how they could/should be in a FFA/Independence scenario. I doubt that export duties, VAT and employee taxes etc would count towards English regional GDP(s) any longer should FFA every occur. However, I'm not an expert, nor an economist. But a simple 'credited at country/region of origin' may suffice in terms of better explaining the 4 national/UK balance sheets.

If the SNP has any sort of sense, and if they ever get anywhere near a confidence and supply situation in Westminster. They should ask for some sort of deal whereby a few economists get to have a full and extensive look at the Treasury 'books' regarding Scotland over the last few decades.
Sending a group to officially ask the EU where Scotland would stand in the event of either future independence, FFA OR an out vote by the rUK at some time in the future would also be helpful. And so much more transparent for everyone in terms of who 'subsidises' who. If at all. A lot of ill-feeling and suspicion ended at at stroke from both sides wouldn't you say ?

Everyone would know where they stand.

CLAPTON

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Everyone would know where they stand.

We know where we stand : one sovereign country.

If the regional government in the north wish to commission a study for what may or may not be the situation in 30 years time them I guess there is little stopping them.

Academic studies come cheap.