Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

Shakethedisease

ps latest poll

Time appears to be running out for SLAB and Jim Murphy to avoid a shellacking in May.

TNS’ second poll this year, brings them into line with all the others bar Panelbase who have substantial leads for the SNP.
For those expecting differential turnout in Scotland to have an effect in May, “A majority of voters (61%) say they are certain to vote in the election, including 74% of both those intending to vote Labour and those backing the SNP.”


Scottish voting intentions for the May 2015 general election (TNS-BMRB) :
SNP 46% (+5)
Labour 30% (-1)
Conservatives 14% (-2)
Liberal Democrats 3% (-1)
Greens 3% (-3)
UKIP 3% (+1)

http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2015/02/26/tns-poll-sees-the-snp-extend-their-lead-from-10-to-16/

Generali

Shakethedisease wrote: »

You need to say where that 'serious' analysis came from.

Ditto the BBC and it's fancy graphs.
Hamish's links tend to be a little biased. Usually culled straight from BetterTogether sites or 'Save our Unity' etc.

Oil eh ? Mabye 100% tax take from $60 a barrel to a Scottish Govt is better than 10% of tax take $60 a barrel as we get from Westminster via Barnett.. ?

And anyway. You've based your entire premise on the fact that no country on the planet could ever be independent or finance itself without oil. Which is just, plainly, wrong.

The Tories bankrolled BetterTogether. And they didn't do that for any sentimental mystical romantic unionist reasons. Nor for political gains considering they have only one MP up here. No.. they could smell money somewhere.. and LOTS of it. With Tories that's generally a given.

Oh look.. both of the authors have Labour stooge written all over them. Bleak for the Scotland.. or bleak for the Labour party ? I think we all know which is the best guess here.

http://joanmcalpine.typepad.com/joan_mcalpine/2011/02/time-for-some-academic-transparency.html

Which bit is wrong in the analysis?

Shakethedisease

Generali wrote: »

Which bit is wrong in the analysis?

When I feel able to post analysis based on facts and figures from site's like WingsoverScotland, NewsnetScotland, Bella Caledonia.. and can ask you 'which bit is wrong in the analysis ?' without you and other posters here hooting with derision that it's a PRO-indy site, come on !!!

Then I feel justified in not rising to that challenge. In fact I'm just going to hoot with derision and say 'Come on'.. those authors are former Labour spin doctors and advisors !!! * hoots with more derision*.

I'm just glad that I don't swallow BBC graphs and Hamish's links whole like you do and actually present them as fact. It's a bit on the gullible side. And anyway, you never got round to telling me which bit of this analysis was wrong from Deutsche Bank in the Telegraph. Mabye we should try that one first since I posted it a few pages back ?

Many of Europe’s most prosperous regions could be better off by going it alone and abandoning the nation states of which they are currently a part, according to a Deutsche Bank report... Relatively rich parts of these countries have been required to prop up their less prosperous peers, according to the report...

..These regions, along with the Basque country and Navarre in Spain, Flanders in Belgium, South Tyrol in Italy, and Scotland.

All but one of the seven regions named in the report boast per capita incomes higher than their nation’s respective averages.
Only output in Scotland fail to match the national average, at 92.9pc of the typical level. Yet when Deutsche accounted for oil deposits based on their location, Scottish production rose to 115pc of the UK average.
“Nearly all the regions are among the wealthiest in their respective countries,” said Barbara Boettcher, an economist at Deutsche Bank. “The patently unequal treatment of regions appears detrimental to the general acceptance of the current system.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11401125/The-European-regions-that-could-be-better-of-going-it-alone.html

Please note the extensive use of 'richest, wealthiest, and propping up poorer parts' of their respective countries'.. Hardly a 'bleak' prospect according to that particular report then. And not an SNP stooge in sight. :cool:

Generali

Shakethedisease wrote: »

When I feel able to post analysis based on facts and figures from site's like WingsoverScotland, NewsnetScotland, Bella Caledonia.. and can ask you 'which bit is wrong in the analysis ?' without you and other posters here hooting with derision that it's a PRO-indy site, come on !!!

Then I feel justified in not rising to that challenge. In fact I'm just going to hoot with derision and say 'Come on'.. those authors are former Labour spin doctors and advisors !!! * hoots with more derision*.

I'm just glad that I don't swallow BBC graphs and Hamish's links whole like you do and actually present them as fact. It's a bit on the gullible side. And anyway, you never got round to telling me which bit of this analysis was wrong from Deutsche Bank in the Telegraph. Mabye we should try that one first since I posted it a few pages back ?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11401125/The-European-regions-that-could-be-better-of-going-it-alone.html

Please note the extensive use of 'richest, wealthiest, and propping up poorer parts' of their respective countries'.. Hardly a 'bleak' prospect according to that particular report then. And not an SNP stooge in sight. :cool:

Obviously you missed this tidbit:

While separation into smaller states may seem appealing, the bank warned that “secession from an existing state structure harbours huge economics risks”.

Scotland produced 1.42mboe/day last year. That is approximately 520 million barrels of oil in the year.

Even if we assume that output remains constant and doesn't fall with price, that's a drop in the value of output from $53bn to $31.2bn p.a..

As Scotland's GDP was a little under $250bn in 2014 according to the Scottish Government:

http://www.gov.scot/Topics/Statistics/Browse/Economy

That implies a cut of 8% of GDP. That's before we factor in the loss of production that will necessarily occur as CAPEX last year fell dramatically:

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/4f0442e0-bcd2-11e4-a917-00144feab7de.html#axzz3StwqyYh6

Wood Mackenzie expects investment in the UK portion of the North Sea to fall from $19.2bn in 2014 to $10.8bn next year. “It takes a brave company to go against the trend and more cuts will happen as time goes on and the oil price stays low,” says Malcolm Dickson, principal analyst.

That's another 4% drop in GDP, again before a single oil company has cut production.

So what about production? Is that likely to remain stable?

The head of UK operations at one large oil group confirmed its North Sea drilling programme would be pared back this year. Unused rigs, he suggested, could soon be seen “cold-stacked” in the Cromarty Firth, northeast of Inverness, the industry’s equivalent of parking defunct planes in the Arizona desert’s aircraft graveyard.

What about the wages of workers on the rigs? Consumption is a very important component of GDP (approximately 70% of UK GDP) and wages are the backbone of consumption:

Several operators, having cut the pay of self-employed contractors by up to 15 per cent this year

The fact is that an independent Scotland would be facing collapsing oil revenues and a disastrous depression right now as GDP fell by c.20% over a 2 year period. Thanks to being in the Union, that scenario has been entirely avoided.

Or are the FT and Scottish Government just Unionist stooges?

And that's before we look at what's happened to gas prices.

You need to sell an awful lot of whisky to make up for all that oil.

skintmacflint

Shakethedisease wrote: »

You seem very willing to attach 'labels' such as small minded to only one side of the debate.
?

Nope , I suggested this is what you've implied twice in the past week.

Maybe read it again.

Leanne1812

Tromking wrote: »

I think Generali`s excellent post covers it.
The central issue is simple, if we both have the same income and consequently pay the same personal taxes, explain to me what area of Scottish economic activity means you can claim an extra £1k plus per capita for public spending in Scotland only?

That's the question that has not been answered fully by anyone yet. It's not been broken down in any satisfactory way just where the money we contribute goes to. So much is 'uk' spending that we cannot get to the bottom of. You see my dilemma? No one has convinced me (yet) Scotland does not hold her own in this Union.

Why on earth would we continue to be a drain on the UK yet they tried their hardest to keep us. It does not make sense.

Leanne1812

Generali, I posted this before. I cannot remember if you watched it or commented. As the video States we can all have opinions but the facts cannot be disputed. Can you dispute what this shows?

Hamish rubbished it by saying it was by a small pro indy organisation.

Possibly you might have a different take, I'm interested :-)



http://youtu.be/1W8cKHcZn60

Generali

Leanne1812 wrote: »

That's the question that has not been answered fully by anyone yet. It's not been broken down in any satisfactory way just where the money we contribute goes to. So much is 'uk' spending that we cannot get to the bottom of. You see my dilemma? No one has convinced me (yet) Scotland does not hold her own in this Union.

Why on earth would we continue to be a drain on the UK yet they tried their hardest to keep us. It does not make sense.

Mine is broken down in good detail. You just don't like it because it doesn't say what you want to hear.

Tromking

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Please note the extensive use of 'richest, wealthiest, and propping up poorer parts' of their respective countries'.. Hardly a 'bleak' prospect according to that particular report then. And not an SNP stooge in sight. :cool:

It's an interesting (and a tad infantile) argument that says Scotland as a constituent part of the UK deserves higher public spending simply because they might be richer if they were an independent nation!
If being in the Union is such a drain on the true wealth Scotland, it begs the question why did YES lose of course.
I'm in favour of total tax and spend autonomy for Scotland now as you cannot give a people almost total political autonomy yet rely on other people's taxes to make it work. The only problem with that of course if you're Scot, is you replace the relative certainty of the UK block grant weighted heavily in favour Scotland with the volatility of the Scottish oil industry for instance. What cannot be allowed to continue however is the situation we have now, it's not based on any system of fairness that I recognise.

Generali

Leanne1812 wrote: »

Generali, I posted this before. I cannot remember if you watched it or commented. As the video States we can all have opinions but the facts cannot be disputed. Can you dispute what this shows?

Hamish rubbished it by saying it was by a small pro indy organisation.

Possibly you might have a different take, I'm interested :-)



http://youtu.be/1W8cKHcZn60

Interesting if true. I suspect that he's cherry picking data points. I'll have a look at GERS as when I have, I've come up with a very different story to the extent that STD claimed that GERS was a conspiracy against the Scots.