Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

Shakethedisease

Generali wrote: »

What you are posting comes from before the fall in oil prices. That changes everything.

BOTH reports were before the fall in oil prices a mere month apart. However, that didn't prevent you from presenting one of them ( March 14 ) to Leanne with the words :-

If I were Scottish I'd be extremely pleased that I'd just voted to remain in the Union. The future would be looking rather bleak outside it.

I based my post on yours and the same authors you presented as 'bleak'. The other report they did, much less so. Cheery in fact. They can't even get those straight with what they think might happen.

And surely you don't think, that anyone considers oil prices as anything other than volatile ? The problem you and other folks with the numbers and graphs have, is that most predictions are based on Scotland following exactly the same path as the UK. Which obviously wouldn't be the case. It's an unknown.

Also, most 'predictions' rarely mention a comparison with the UK finances side by side. Because the UK's in general, from what I've seen usually come out much worse deficit/debt wise. It's why they don't want Scotland to leave in fact. It would make things 10% worse than they already are.

Generali

Yes and I analysed the change as a result of the subsequent fall in oil prices.

Shakethedisease

Generali wrote: »

Yes and I analysed the change as a result of the subsequent fall in oil prices.

Based on GERS, ONS and IFS figures no doubt.. based on UK predictions and finances. Scotland going independent is an unknown. Economists should really just admit it. If they can't predict a mother of all financial crashes coming before it does.. then there's very little chance of predicting with any hope of accuracy whatsoever, what a newly independent country will look like 2, 5 or 10 years from now. Simply because they don't know what any independent government will do, get rid of, prioritise, end, invest in, raise, lower or discover. So they just base it all on 'what would the UK do for the next 20 years'. It's not a fair comparison to make because it obviously wouldn't happen.

We can only say that Scotland has as good a chance as any. It's got a lot going for it. And if you're really honest..You must know that no-one has even in their wildest dreams, SNP or anyone even vaguely informed, based Scotland's entire financial future on transitory oil prices. Everyone knows it's finite and volatile. Is probably why there are so many windfarms about up here, and renewables are where it's at.

It just suits vested interested economists, and a Treasury who's thrown neutrality out the window to present and skew it as the case. And the media to repeat it like sheep. They don't know. No-one does. Not even you and your oil price predictions. Because even you know that even if they're down now.. they might go back up ! It's not unheard of. But is all speculation, they may stay low for ages. Markets are unpredictable.. who knew ?

( ps We do ! ).

Generali

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Based on GERS, ONS and IFS figures no doubt.

No. Based on the output figures in the FT derived from financial statements from companies drilling in the North Sea.

I realise that you hate to hear this but the simple fact is that if the price of your biggest export by far almost halves in price you are FUBAR'd. You don't need a degree in economics to work that out. All I've done is identify the depth of the massive turd that Scotland would be up to her neck in if she were independent.

How are other oil dependent economies going? Oh yeah, FUBAR'd, I remember. I imagine that places like Norway, Saudi and Venezuela wish they were less reliant on the volatile price of a single commodity which has just tanked and probably has a little further to fall too. Scotland fortunately has the rest of the UK to help her through these hard times.

BTW, if GERS/ONS & IFS figures aren't good enough for you, what do you think is? We've identified that the weakness of GERS is that it assigns RBS and HBOS taxes to Scotland despite most of them being earned in England. Your mate with the blog seemed to think that the errors rounded to ~0 which is encouraging.

Gangaweed

It's just laughable reading the SNP stooges posts. They are totally devoid of logic.

That what they call "Project Fear" is what we call facts says it all. Heck, we even have someone arguing that a fall in the price of the main economic export of 50% isn't a problem.

I don't understand why the SNP and the Greens don't form a coalition. Match made in heaven.

.string.

Gangaweed wrote: »

It's just laughable reading the SNP stooges posts. They are totally devoid of logic.

That what they call "Project Fear" is what we call facts says it all. Heck, we even have someone arguing that a fall in the price of the main economic export of 50% isn't a problem.

I don't understand why the SNP and the Greens don't form a coalition. Match made in heaven.

The whole Indy Project is based on promulgating the lie that Scotland would be be a rich country immediately on leaving the Union. Anything that points against that is dismissed or simply avoided as a discussion point; the tactical approach is to keep trying to fool what they call "The Sheeple" and never never admit to any non-rose-tinted thoughts.

It's been about oil, oil, and more oil in the recent posts but there are many things that were fragile in the teetering Scottish Economy during the last weeks of the Referendum Campaign. The financial sector was about to leave and with it any relevant tax income for a new Scottish State; other businesses were poised to leave and we have seen some some specific examples, in the posters to these forums, the milk cow of Ship building for the Royal Navy was in limbo with Portsmouth poised to regain it's ship building capability at the expense of the Clyde (now it's the other way round).

Scotland does very well out of the Union and I'm glad it does; that is more a sign of how well this Union works than an argument that Scotland will achieve the same thing and more outside the Union, especially when the SNP works so hard at pi**ing everyone off, and alienating its largest market.

I shall be glad when the SNP get its comeuppance; I just hope it is not at the expense of Scotland and our Union.

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

The whole Indy Project is based on promulgating the lie that Scotland would be be a rich country immediately on leaving the Union.

No it's about dissolving a political union on the premise that a Scots govt would run all Scottish affairs better. For better or for worse, especially re oil prices etc. Economics is only a part of it.[/QUOTE]

I shall be glad when the SNP get its comeuppance; I just hope it is not at the expense of Scotland and our Union.

I guess May will be a good indicator one way or the other as to where the Union, Scotland and the SNP are going.

Shakethedisease

Generali wrote: »

No. Based on the output figures in the FT derived from financial statements from companies drilling in the North Sea.

I realise that you hate to hear this but the simple fact is that if the price of your biggest export by far almost halves in price you are FUBAR'd. You don't need a degree in economics to work that out. All I've done is identify the depth of the massive turd that Scotland would be up to her neck in if she were independent.

How are other oil dependent economies going? Oh yeah, FUBAR'd, I remember. I imagine that places like Norway, Saudi and Venezuela wish they were less reliant on the volatile price of a single commodity which has just tanked and probably has a little further to fall too. Scotland fortunately has the rest of the UK to help her through these hard times.

BTW, if GERS/ONS & IFS figures aren't good enough for you, what do you think is? We've identified that the weakness of GERS is that it assigns RBS and HBOS taxes to Scotland despite most of them being earned in England. Your mate with the blog seemed to think that the errors rounded to ~0 which is encouraging.

But then your whole argument against independence is rather much FUBAR'd if oil prices go back up then isn't it ? So if your arguments are to stand up to any scrutiny, if oil hits $100 a barrel again.. Scotland would be laughing all the way to the bank ? Strange you never mentioned this when oil WAS $100 + a barrel then ?

You've identified present weaknesses based on current events. Events that have a tendency to change very quickly in either direction. Therefore, you can't with any degree of accuracy say Scotland should never, ever ever, be independent, because oil prices at the current time are low.

In short, you've undermined your entire argument by never indicating ( that I'm aware of ) that high oil prices mean Scotland would be good it alone to go on an economic basis ( high oil prices whoooo, Shakey, get that X in the Yes box asap !!!! )...Yet low oil prices indicate a prohibitive 'turd' barrier. Which is it to be ? You can't have it both ways.

ps that guy with the paper isn't my mate. I don't know who he is, it was a Google search that pointed to the paper. I posted it for interested parties like yourself.

.string.

Shakethedisease wrote:

No it's about dissolving a political union on the premise that a Scots govt would run all Scottish affairs better. For better or for worse, especially re oil prices etc. Economics is only a part of it.

There you go again, ignoring the points made.

The point made, by the way, since you react as if not paying attention, is that it is not just a matter of oil prices for better or worse, it's the rest of the Scottish Economy for worse.

Where is your superior governance if you can't deliver a better life for Scots?

What have you got to offer for splitting so many families into mutually vindictive foreigners?

zagubov

.string. wrote: »

What have you got to offer for splitting so many families into mutually vindictive foreigners?

OK I thought this thread had bottomed out ages ago, but now it's surprised me by reaching a new low.:D