Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

.string.

I've been sitting on the sidelines trying to understand the thrust of logic in the Nat argument, not joining in for fear of losing my sanity.

I now think I've cracked it. It goes as follows (apologies to Nats for inserting more logic than they intended).

I know nothing about the subject but I know enough to know that the statistics, being generated by Westminster are completely unclear to me and are therefore false and
deliberately misleading. It therefore follows that nobody else understands them or has any idea about the true financial statistics. What I do know is that Scotland generated a lot of wealth which exceeds some of the English regions and therefore Scotland is a is a net contributor to the UK. I do not choose to discuss spending statistics because I don't understand them and in any case there is additional non-identifiable spending for a whole host of incidental expenditures which are assigned to Scotland unfairly because some common activities are of benefit only to England and which therefore are irrelevant. Since I don't acknowledge or comprehend common spending which only benefits Scotland, it is not worth discussing these things anyway.

Since I have given such a clear statement on why Scotland has no budget deficit, I insist that you analyse all statistics and show that what I didn't understand proves my opinion. No, I won't give any figures because I've done that already.

What are we talking about?

CLAPTON

Shakethedisease wrote: »

It says nothing of Scotland outwith these current constitutional arrangements, either via independence or FFA. Short term, mid term or long term. Extrapolating a theoretical independent Scotlands finances 5, 10 or 30 years into the future is useless. As most simply assume a theoretical Scottish government in control of all revenues, taxes and expenditure, would follow 100% what the UK does currently. Which is patently nonsense. Otherwise there would be no need or desire for independence or FFA. The whole point of which, is to do things differently and much more specific to Scotland ( ie a greater focus on renewables, no Trident, differing tax and welfare rates, immigration policies etc etc <---- purely examples).

you forgot : 'and a lot more borrowing'

Tromking

Shakethedisease wrote: »

I pointed out some facts. That the SNP 'don't want independence' is probably stretching things just a tad far in terms of believability.

I said that the SNP didn't want FFA not independence. The issue for SNP voters re. Independence is that the Scottish people voted against it decisively less than 12 months ago.

Thrugelmir

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Actually, it is a policy. Sorry. Labour's was kind of similar too. Though they seem to have ditched them all with Miliband's resignation.

Hardly surprising. Policy made in response to public opinion. Will be pulled apart. As there's no substance. "Anti-austerity" is intentionally spin in tone. So appeals to a section of voters. Just like bank bashing and no doms. It's vote winning. Rather than tackling the problem of a huge hole in the UK's budget. That no political party even wishes to discuss. When that point arrives then austerity may have finally arrived.

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

I've been sitting on the sidelines trying to understand the thrust of logic in the Nat argument, not joining in for fear of losing my sanity.

I now think I've cracked it. It goes as follows (apologies to Nats for inserting more logic than they intended).

I know nothing about the subject but I know enough to know that the statistics, being generated by Westminster are completely unclear to me and are therefore false and
deliberately misleading. It therefore follows that nobody else understands them or has any idea about the true financial statistics. What I do know is that Scotland generated a lot of wealth which exceeds some of the English regions and therefore Scotland is a is a net contributor to the UK. I do not choose to discuss spending statistics because I don't understand them and in any case there is additional non-identifiable spending for a whole host of incidental expenditures which are assigned to Scotland unfairly because some common activities are of benefit only to England and which therefore are irrelevant. Since I don't acknowledge or comprehend common spending which only benefits Scotland, it is not worth discussing these things anyway.

Since I have given such a clear statement on why Scotland has no budget deficit, I insist that you analyse all statistics and show that what I didn't understand proves my opinion. No, I won't give any figures because I've done that already.

What are we talking about?

Do you really want to go through it all again ? And then next March too. However, just think of me as somewhat reflective of round about 50% of the Scottish voting contingent currently. Who take the view re GERS as more or less :-

1. We’re not sure that “You’ve been in the Union for 300 years and you’re a financial basket case!” is a particularly ringing endorsement of the Union.


2. There isn’t an independence referendum imminent and nobody’s offering Scotland fiscal autonomy, so the state of GERS at this particular moment in time is an entirely moot point.


3. Countries have good years and bad years. This isn’t news. Economies based on volatile resources protect themselves by investing the proceeds from the good years in a contingency reserve for bad years.
Norway doesn’t care what the oil price is because they’ve got a mindbogglingly vast oil fund. The UK, almost uniquely on the planet, never bothered setting one up for Scotland. This reckless and short-sighted mismanagement and neglect again seems a curious argument to deploy in favour of the Union.


4. In the absence of an oil fund, Scotland would have had to borrow money in a bad year. This is what’s currently happening to Scotland in the UK. So, um, what have we gained from being in the Union?


5. We don’t think anyone, except perhaps the odd brainless Sun journalist, is so stupid as to actually imagine that Scotland is being “bailed out” by the UK with billions of extra pounds to cover the shortfall in a bad year. The UK is incurring debt in Scotland’s name which Scotland will have to pay back in a disproportionately high amount. Nobody’s getting a freebie.

And even if we were, we’ve paid for it many, many times over. In the last 30 or so years, according to independent analysis, Scotland’s total net excess contribution to the UK is a thumping £222bn.

There, that's what we're talking about. You may now rejoin the sidelines and snipe at your leisure.

skintmacflint

Shakethedisease wrote: »

I'm glad you're happy the Tories are in for the next five years. And at least you've admitted what everyone knew from your posts the last few months here as a *cough* completely 'undecided' voter.

Early in this thread I commented I'd like a Conservative government, possibly with a Lib Dem coalition. But with your tendency to make incorrect assumptions and inferences on other people's behalf, it's not surprising you lose track. Must get tiring for you.

I don't have the time or inclination to correct every wrong inference or assumption you make on my behalf. Mainly because your opinion means as little to me, as mine does to you.

You are doing a grand job for Better Together on here. Lol.

Shakethedisease

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Hardly surprising. Policy made in response to public opinion. Will be pulled apart. As there's no substance. "Anti-austerity" is intentionally spin in tone. So appeals to a section of voters. Just like bank bashing and no doms. It's vote winning. Rather than tackling the problem of a huge hole in the UK's budget. That no political party even wishes to discuss. When that point arrives then austerity may have finally arrived.

No, it wasn't pulled apart. And it's still policy for the SNP. It wasn't spin and it was vote winning ( where people were able to vote for a party standing on an anti-austerity platform ).

Why not take your chance like Chewmyleggoff and slag another economist off as hysterical.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hIWNjldV--8

Shakethedisease

skintmacflint wrote: »

Early in this thread I commented I'd like a Conservative government, possibly with a Lib Dem coalition. But with your tendency to make incorrect assumptions and inferences on other people's behalf, it's not surprising you lose track. Must get tiring for you.

I don't have the time or inclination to correct every wrong inference or assumption you make on my behalf. Mainly because your opinion means as little to me, as mine does to you.

You are doing a grand job for Better Together on here. Lol.

Referendum and BetterTogether was last year luvvie. Join us in 2015 sometime. And no, replying to you never gets tiring for me. Don't worry. Shame my opinion means so little to you that you will not be bothering to reply anymore.. since it evidently has moved you to reply to every single post of mine thus far.

Wishing you well.

CLAPTON

Shakethedisease wrote: »

No, it wasn't pulled apart. And it's still policy for the SNP. It wasn't spin and it was vote winning ( where people were able to vote for a party standing on an anti-austerity platform ).

Why not take your chance like Chewmyleggoff and slag another economist off as hysterical.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hIWNjldV--8

one wonders if it would have been so vote winning if the SNP policy was stated as being

'the SNP will borrow as much extra money as necessary to avoid any cuts : in fact we wish to borrow even more to fund extra benefits'


rather than 'anti austerity' and 'more progressive'

of course all the Scottish people know they mean exactly the same thing but one wonders ..........

Enterprise_1701C

ruggedtoast wrote: »

I am considering changing the name of this thread to something more accurate.

How about: "The 'I would like to argue infinitum about Scotland until my brain starts to drip out of my ears' thread."?

That would be an excellent title. The only way we will know whether Scotland would float or sink would be either independence of FFA, ie with no money coming from the rest of the UK. I know where my bet would be though.