Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

Shakethedisease

chewmylegoff wrote: »

No I managed to read it. you have highlighted the bits which make it clear why it isn't relevant because the article is talking about tax revenues rather than government spending.

Furthermore, if your view is that it is impossible to work out what Scottish tax revenues are then doesn't this rather call into question SNP demands for Scottish NI and VAT revenues to be kept by Scotland?

No. Why would it. Those would be based on residency or geographical criteria as the UK does now. Not vague stabs in the dark about how to split things up between 'unidentified spending' in Scotland or Surrey. Or revenues collected from the Isle of Lewis, but attributed elsewhere due to HQ location. Or 'methodology' for that matter.

Shakethedisease

chewmylegoff wrote: »

You will have to ask someone who made that claim.

According to Shakey it is impossible for anyone to work this out anyway as she read an article in money week saying that no one knows what Scottish tax revenues are and the figures that anyone presents are necessarily just random guesses. On that basis perhaps there is no point even trying.

It wasn't in Moneyweek. They just reproduced the article. It was in the Financial Times ? But what do they know...

• This article was first published in the Financial Times.

chewmylegoff

Shakethedisease wrote: »

No. Why would it. Those would be based on residency or geographical criteria as the UK does now. Not vague stabs in the dark about how to split things up between 'unidentified spending' in Scotland or Surrey. Or revenues collected from the Isle of Lewis, but attributed elsewhere due to HQ location. Or 'methodology' for that matter.

So although the article you have posted talks only about the calculation of Scottish tax revenues and does not mention the methodology for apportioning expenditure at all, what it actually shows is that the expenditure is all just made up whereas the tax revenues can be easily identified on the basis on residency or geographical criteria.

Jesus wept.

Working out what has been spent in Scotland is pretty easy as there are three main elements - Scottish central government spending, Scottish local government spending and then benefits paid to Scottish people by the UK govt (apportioned on the basis of 'residency or geographical criteria).

In addition to that there is a share of non-identifiable spending which is almost entirely defence spending and debt interest payments which are assigned on a per capita basis. This is not a stab in the dark and is a perfectly reasonable way of allocating expenditure.

If you can think of a better way of doing it I'm all ears but I expect what you will do is ignore everything I have said and not bother to actually look at the components of non-identifiable expenditure and continue to go on about "unidentifiable expenditure" which you seem to believe is some civil servant in Westminster making up ways of pretending that expenditure incurred in Surrey was in fact incurred in the outer Hebrides in order to try to make Scotland look like it is in a worse financial position than it is.

chewmylegoff

Shakethedisease wrote: »

It wasn't in Moneyweek. They just reproduced the article. It was in the Financial Times ? But what do they know...

With the attached disclaimer:


Merryn Somerset Webb is editor-in-chief of MoneyWeek. The views expressed are personal

skintmacflint

chewmylegoff wrote: »

If you can think of a better way of doing it I'm all ears but I expect what you will do is ignore everything I have said and not bother to actually look at the components of non-identifiable expenditure and continue to go on about "unidentifiable expenditure" which you seem to believe is some civil servant in Westminster making up ways of pretending that expenditure incurred in Surrey was in fact incurred in the outer Hebrides in order to try to make Scotland look like it is in a worse financial position than it is.

If Sturgeon, Salmond and the entire SNP exec admitted Scotland can't finacially sustain it's expenditure, would make no difference to a fervent Independence supporter like STD.

Because the last stand reply of a true Nat is they don't care. Anything else is just incidental chat they enjoy along the way.

Of course SNP realise that the majority of their new supporters are not of the same mindset as their dedicated followers, which is why they continue to promote their spin and evade the obvious. While proclaiming to be different and more honest than any other political party.

The problem they have now is trying to persuade a large section of the unconvinced who with each week become more entrenched in their views that the SNP do not speak or represent them.

Shakethedisease

chewmylegoff wrote: »

So although the article you have posted talks only about the calculation of Scottish tax revenues and does not mention the methodology for apportioning expenditure at all, what it actually shows is that the expenditure is all just made up whereas the tax revenues can be easily identified on the basis on residency or geographical criteria.

Jesus wept.

Working out what has been spent in Scotland is pretty easy as there are three main elements - Scottish central government spending, Scottish local government spending and then benefits paid to Scottish people by the UK govt (apportioned on the basis of 'residency or geographical criteria).

In addition to that there is a share of non-identifiable spending which is almost entirely defence spending and debt interest payments which are assigned on a per capita basis. This is not a stab in the dark and is a perfectly reasonable way of allocating expenditure.

If you can think of a better way of doing it I'm all ears but I expect what you will do is ignore everything I have said and not bother to actually look at the components of non-identifiable expenditure and continue to go on about "unidentifiable expenditure" which you seem to believe is some civil servant in Westminster making up ways of pretending that expenditure incurred in Surrey was in fact incurred in the outer Hebrides in order to try to make Scotland look like it is in a worse financial position than it is.

I've posted many articles over the last few years on threads like this. The above was only one of them. Feel free to go back through my posting history and peruse at your convenience. I'm not going to repeat the same things all over again. ( much to everyone's relief I daresay ).

The fact is that there are lots of 'questions' over Scotland and it's revenues and expenditure. GERS is not the Scottish Government's 'own figures' as you and others keep stating. They come from the Treasury. Which has already stated on record that they felt no need to be neutral, in the lead up to the independence referendum. The Treasury has also been on record hiding facts and figures from the Scottish public in the past, if it put the Union in doubt.

They will NEVER produce figures that look good for Scotland. Because it would mean the end of the Union if they ever did. This is simple logic. Scotland looking too good economically, essentially means independence is just round the corner.

No-one is saying Scotland wouldn't have significant problems, debts and deficits going it alone, or with FFA. However, these have to be balanced by the fact that significant cuts, deficits and debt are already in place or coming down the line as part of the UK at the present time anyway. It also leaves the Scottish Government pretty much powerless to deal with or implement measures that might better target or stimulate growth specific areas of the Scottish economy. Which can be very different to what is needed elsewhere in the UK in specific problems other areas.

A simple point in case, Scotland needs immigrants as her population is aging. UK policy and public opinion elsewhere is that there are too many immigrants. Now that's not to say that anyone is wrong or right. Simply that in large area's of economic activity and policies.. a 'one size fits all' approach doesn't always work for everyone.

Again, there needs to be a bit of balance. And no-one is saying that there wouldn't be big problems ahead for Scotland. But there are big problems now anyway as part of the UK. Many feel that Westminster, is perhaps rather more inclined to fixing 'big' problems in area's closer to home than 400+ miles north of it. Some, like myself would prefer a government who are more in touch with economic challenges, or have much more in the way of powers to implement different policies.. closer to home too.

Shakethedisease

chewmylegoff wrote: »

With the attached disclaimer:


Merryn Somerset Webb is editor-in-chief of MoneyWeek. The views expressed are personal

So ? Are you saying you personally know better or that she was lying in her article ?

Shakethedisease

skintmacflint wrote: »

If Sturgeon, Salmond and the entire SNP exec admitted Scotland can't finacially sustain it's expenditure, would make no difference to a fervent Independence supporter like STD.

Because the last stand reply of a true Nat is they don't care. Anything else is just incidental chat they enjoy along the way.

Of course SNP realise that the majority of their new supporters are not of the same mindset as their dedicated followers, which is why they continue to promote their spin and evade the obvious. While proclaiming to be different and more honest than any other political party.

The problem they have now is trying to persuade a large section of the unconvinced who with each week become more entrenched in their views that the SNP do not speak or represent them.

You lost the election mcskinflint. Try and get over it.;)

Once you can prove your no doubt extensive psychology credentials and qualifications, then I may take your points onboard about 'mindsets of dedicated followers'.. But most SNP voters are just ordinary people who've weighed things up and made up their minds on a personal informed basis.

Using the word 'NATS' is just 'othering' ( you should know what that is being a psychology expert ).. but doesn't make those who vote SNP any different from you in terms of how they came to their own conclusions. Just ordinary people like you, who vote for a different political party. There are no 'true NATS' any more than there are 'true LIB DEMS' or 'true TORIES'. Because you have no idea what you are saying by that. It's in essence just an angry attempt to put down ordinary people who vote differently from yourself.

We'll see how 'entrenched' those anti-SNP views are, when those billions of cuts start coming down the line. People tend to get significantly less entrenched in their views, when it starts hurting in their pockets. Scottish Labour voters in particular recently, are becoming less 'entrenched' by the week.

CLAPTON

Shakethedisease wrote: »

You lost the election mcskinflint. Try and get over it.;)

Once you can prove your no doubt extensive psychology credentials and qualifications, then I may take your points onboard about 'mindsets of dedicated followers'.. But most SNP voters are just ordinary people who've weighed things up and made up their minds on a personal informed basis.

Using the word 'NATS' is just 'othering' ( you should know what that is being a psychology expert ).. but doesn't make those who vote SNP any different from you in terms of how they came to their own conclusions. Just ordinary people like you, who vote for a different political party. There are no 'true NATS' any more than there are 'true LIB DEMS' or 'true TORIES'. Because you have no idea what you are saying by that. It's in essence just an angry attempt to put down ordinary people who vote differently from yourself.

We'll see how 'entrenched' those anti-SNP views are, when those billions of cuts start coming down the line. People tend to get significantly less entrenched in their views, when it starts hurting in their pockets. Scottish Labour voters in particular recently, are becoming less 'entrenched' by the week.

a lot of SNP voters do hold the 'anyone by the English ' views
and do hold that Flower of Scotland would make a suitable anthem

so in many ways they are different to other people although taking a historical perspective, you could call them 'ordinary'.

It's likely that many labour supporters whether Scottish or not, will support more English borrowing and more state handouts, rather than focusing on how Scotland can produce more goods and services and create long term wealth.

Thrugelmir

Shakethedisease wrote: »

We'll see how 'entrenched' those anti-SNP views are, when those billions of cuts start coming down the line. People tend to get significantly less entrenched in their views, when it starts hurting in their pockets. Scottish Labour voters in particular recently, are becoming less 'entrenched' by the week.

Well the SNP have made no positive contribution to how the UK should balance it's books. Anti austerity is not a policy. It's populist politics. Fortunately there's enough people with common sense enough to see through that spin.