Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

Generali

Shakethedisease wrote: »

I'm willing to accept that you going on about Govt spending in Scotland falling to X levels upon independence. May not be that different from Govt spending under George Osborne. He's got some pretty big plans hasn't he for those ?

The Scottish Budget is going to be cut, from what I've read, a further 10% too. As for GER's have some Wings. 40% of GERS figures aren't under Scottish Govt control.

No-one's voting for more Govt spending. They're voting for the above 40% and everything else to transfer to Holyrood control. And for some real choice through the ballot box of parties we want to see running the show. That usually doesn't include the Conservative party up here. Not for the last few decades anyway.

But like I've said before the financial 'black hole' an iScotland might have found itself last Sept..is looking more and more like the financial 'black hole' Osborne is intent on implementing anyway through 'shrinking the state' or whatever one wants to call it... 'long term economic plan' ?

Osborne is cutting, and cutting way harder than Thatcher did. Always popular politically north of the border....

It's not as simple as the 40% moving to Scottish control because if that happens, according to the GERS figures as I understand them, you then have 100% of the spending commitment but only 82% of the funding required to meet those commitments.

Under Mr Osborne, spending is due to fall from 45% of GDP to 36% of GDP, which I will believe when it happens, so spending vs GDP falls by about 20% in effect. If Scotland were independent and maintained spending at current levels, taxes would need to rise by about 20% and that's before the SNP* starts reversing the 'austerity cuts' imposed by the last Government.

The difference, however, is that by shrinking the relative size of the state, Mr Osborne is increasing the private sector. However in Scotland the SNP seems to be proposing that the state be maintained in the same absolute size by decreasing the size of the private sector.

As a result, the overall size of the economic pie decreases in size unless Scotland can borrow to make up the difference. I accept that the size of that required borrowing is up for debate but it seems likely to be somewhere between 10-25% of Government spending. That simply isn't tenable, even if the Scottish Government somehow manages to start with nil debt.

So yes, Scotland could maintain spending at the current level of Government spending:GDP which would entail huge cuts or an independent Scotland could increase taxes to try to maintain spending at the current £ level (the latter probably isn't tenable in reality as people who could would simply move a few miles south).


*other Scottish Governments may be available

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Shakethedisease wrote: »

But like I've said before the financial 'black hole' an iScotland might have found itself last Sept..is looking more and more like the financial 'black hole' Osborne is intent on implementing anyway through 'shrinking the state' or whatever one wants to call it... 'long term economic plan' ?

Osborne is cutting, and cutting way harder than Thatcher did. Always popular politically north of the border....

Just.... Wow.

The cuts required for an iScotland would be astronomic by comparison to Osborne's.

What the Tories are doing is increasing spending in cash terms but at a lesser rate than the economy grows.

Here's what Osborne's "cuts" look like in cash terms.



Because the economy is growing faster than the increase in government spending, this results in a "cut" only when you compare spending to GDP...



So to be clear, the amount of cash being spent continues to rise, but at a lesser rate than the economy and tax revenue from it grows.

The advantage of this is to slowly reduce the amount we borrow every year and maybe, eventually, to put us in a position where we can start reducing the debt.

As has already been pointed out, the sort of deficit an independent Scotland would start life with is pretty similar to the situation Greece found itself in recently, and as a result it was forced to actually cut spending in cash terms by the sort of amounts you'd be talking about for Scotland.

Here's what that looks like....



Osborne has increased spending every year.

Greece has actually had to cut spending.

Osborne has protected the vast bulk of the welfare state and only made tiny tweaks around the edges.

The Greeks have pensioners rummaging in bins for food and hospitals running out of medicine.

You really, really, really, have no idea if you think Tory cuts are anything less than an order of magnitude smaller than the cuts an Indy Scotland would be forced to make.

Mistermeaner

Leanne1812 wrote: »

Maybe try to read what I've actually written and breathe a little.......

I was responding to Hamish's post of the high taxation disastrous Danish model.

I used the McDonald's salary as an example of to show its not all doom & gloom. Relative, I believe I said. Take a moment to digest if you need to.

Who would buy our products? Who would buy our exports? Seriously? I must of forgot we are wholly & entirely subsidised.......geez oh.....makes me despair at the ignorance & arrogance of some.

The rest of your rant is not worthy of response.

your response is once again one of fiscal ignorance - its all relative? Yes but scotland does not sit alone in the world and must compete on a global scale for resources - high wages for mcjobs would spell doom and gloom.

Your ignorance is truly astounding. No wonder the SNP have so much support

.string.

Re Denmark

I doubt anyone here, including myself, can talk authoritatively about whether the Danes have a country which is comparative to what Scotland could eventually achieve were it to be independent.

A couple of things I think I can confidently state, however, is that Danes are proud to be Danes, and they would not like Denmark to be cited as a failure in any sense of the word.

My Wife is Danish and I've been to Denmark many times, visiting relatives and so on. So I'm fairly familiar with the life style there but not with it's politics. The Danes have a good sense if humour, albeit sometimes somewhat slapstick, and I enjoyed the response of a prominent Danish politician some years ago when asked about the Danish defence policy; he said "We Surrender".

There are many things I enjoy about Denmark; the Danish food is great in parts; anyone who has had a Danish sandwich, Smørrebrød, would be hooked (see a list if examples and look up the result on Google Images when you search "Danish Smørrebrød". I say in parts because I like more vegetables than is the norm in Denmark.

The people there are great, and the standard of living is good, although I have to say that Danish TV is not, lacking the huge variety on offer we have in the UK with our massive media industry and the way of life is also, to my eyes, lacking in the huge amount of local events and activities we enjoy here in our dynamic country. A matter of scale I think.

My relations have often complained to me about the taxes they pay. They certainly support the social use of their taxes, but my very brief second hand exposure to their health service has not been impressive. My Mother-in-Law had to pay for most of her medicine for example, because her income was above a certain threshold. Nothing wrong in that principle one might say, but then her only income was as an OAP plus a small survivor pension from her Husband who was a postman (he rode a bike delivering mail). She found it very very difficult.

Cars - one notices in Denmark the lower level of more luxurious or bigger cars in Denmark and the apparently smaller density of traffic.

Overall, life in Denmark is pretty good and no doubt Scotland could achieve something similar eventually. The Danes have been a country for ages and it takes time to settle into a mature stability. They have the advantage geographically of having both a close sea and land border with Germany.

In addition to the economic downturn, Indy Scottish horizons would need to be lowered drastically if it scrapped the advantages and opportunities gained from Union with the UK. They would need their own currency (like the Danes) or if they joined the EU under current rules they would find themselves absorbed into the EURO with the resulting loss of control over their economy to a much larger entity which did not treat them with the same asymmetry that they currently enjoy.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

.string. wrote: »

Re Denmark

My relations have often complained to me about the taxes they pay.

My Mother-in-Law had to pay for most of her medicine for example, because her income was above a certain threshold. Nothing wrong in that principle one might say, but then her only income was as an OAP plus a small survivor pension from her Husband who was a postman (he rode a bike delivering mail). She found it very very difficult.

Denmark is a lovely place, and I'd actually agree that given long enough and a huge amount of suffering in the meantime, iScotland might eventually be able to achieve the same sort of high tax, high cost, economy that they have there.

But that is most certainly NOT what was sold to Scotland by the Yes campaign.

Can you imagine the response Yes campaigners would have had in the working class and benefits heartlands of the wider Glasgow area and Dundee (the only places they won) had they been knocking on the door and saying....

"Your costs of living will soar, we'll be charging most of you for prescriptions, and imposing eye-watering taxes on most of the things you like.... Please vote Yes."

The Yes vote would have fallen off a cliff.

That why there's been so much misinformation by the separatists, so many outright lies peddled about the economy, and oil (remember all the 'secret oilfields' nonsense), and the level of taxation/cuts required.

.string. wrote: »

Cars - one notices in Denmark the lower level of more luxurious or bigger cars in Denmark and the apparently smaller density of traffic.

Yes a 180% tax on new cars will do that...

In common with everything else in Denmark, motoring isn’t cheap. New cars are taxed at 180 per cent and the impact trickles down to used car prices. This means that a modest second-hand saloon suddenly becomes an indicator of extortionate wealth and most people drive matchboxes.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/expat/9853662/Buying-a-car-in-Denmark-even-a-banger-costs-a-fortune.html

I mean, really, is that the sort of economy you think most Scots want to live in?

High tax, high costs, high prices, paying for prescriptions and being priced out of owning cars?

Yes it manages to survive as a country, but..... Really?

.string.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

The campaign was far, far bigger than the SNP. In fact they admitted months before the referendum that they controlled very little of it. Most of it was just plain grassroots people power getting involved, informing themselves and making up their own minds based on what Hamish's lot was saying, and what the Yes side was saying.

Pure democracy in action. You may have missed most of it though. As you're still under the impression the SNP had carte blanche over the media airwaves to spread 'propaganda' 24/7. You couldn't be more wrong. Everyone was actually told how bad an iScotland would be. 45% didn't believe it though. 50% don't now a year later.

The SNP had full control over what they said and could have modified the figures in the White Paper, but I see that whinging about criticism is the norm and always preferable to facing the truth with the SNP Collective; any silly paranoid thing to avoid uncomfortable questions.

Thrugelmir

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Osborne is cutting, and cutting way harder than Thatcher did. Always popular politically north of the border....

Standing on a soap box repeating the same mantra endlessly will switch people off. You really need to come up with something fresh. Or the electorate will simply drift away. Negative campaigning has to become positive at some point. Which is precisely the hole Labour have dug for themselves. No vision to sell.

kabayiri

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Denmark is a lovely place, and I'd actually agree that given long enough and a huge amount of suffering in the meantime, iScotland might eventually be able to achieve the same sort of high tax, high cost, economy that they have there.
...

Having an aspirational vision is only half of it. You'd need a realistic long term plan to get there, capable of withstanding changes in government.

One small example. It was interesting to see how people in Denmark would leave bicycles in piles at a bus stop.

Don't know which one is yours? It doesn't matter - you just take one from the top!

That's a nice non-materialistic outlook, but it only takes a small criminal gang in somewhere like Glasgow to destroy any similar scheme.

I think cultural change is the hardest of the lot to achieve.

.string.

kabayiri wrote: »

Having an aspirational vision is only half of it. You'd need a realistic long term plan to get there, capable of withstanding changes in government.

One small example. It was interesting to see how people in Denmark would leave bicycles in piles at a bus stop.

Don't know which one is yours? It doesn't matter - you just take one from the top!

That's a nice non-materialistic outlook, but it only takes a small criminal gang in somewhere like Glasgow to destroy any similar scheme.

I think cultural change is the hardest of the lot to achieve.

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:
Bicycles, ... I'd not heard That ...... It reminds me a bit of Cambridge - leave one, take one,.... But not so extreme at Cambridge.

Shakethedisease

Generali wrote: »

It's not as simple as the 40% moving to Scottish control because if that happens, according to the GERS figures as I understand them, you then have 100% of the spending commitment but only 82% of the funding required to meet those commitments.

Under Mr Osborne, spending is due to fall from 45% of GDP to 36% of GDP, which I will believe when it happens, so spending vs GDP falls by about 20% in effect. If Scotland were independent and maintained spending at current levels, taxes would need to rise by about 20% and that's before the SNP* starts reversing the 'austerity cuts' imposed by the last Government.

The difference, however, is that by shrinking the relative size of the state, Mr Osborne is increasing the private sector. However in Scotland the SNP seems to be proposing that the state be maintained in the same absolute size by decreasing the size of the private sector.

As a result, the overall size of the economic pie decreases in size unless Scotland can borrow to make up the difference. I accept that the size of that required borrowing is up for debate but it seems likely to be somewhere between 10-25% of Government spending. That simply isn't tenable, even if the Scottish Government somehow manages to start with nil debt.

So yes, Scotland could maintain spending at the current level of Government spending:GDP which would entail huge cuts or an independent Scotland could increase taxes to try to maintain spending at the current £ level (the latter probably isn't tenable in reality as people who could would simply move a few miles south).


*other Scottish Governments may be available

Over the course of ten years the Osborne aim is to reduce the state from 45.7% of GDP to 36.5%. This is way beyond the scale of cuts Thatcher managed. Former BBC economics editor Stephanie Flanders called this ‘the biggest cutting of a state anywhere in ten years.’ Indeed, the only bigger cuts have been the brutal shock therapies which happened in Eastern Europe after the Soviet Bloc collapsed...

A '50/50' chance of tax rises and spending cuts.

So what will happen if the next set of forecasts move in the wrong direction? There must be a 50-50 chance they will. If he does not stay lucky, Wednesday’s announced tax rises and spending cuts may not be the last.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/74ef9e7e-93d1-11e5-bd82-c1fb87bef7af.html#axzz3t5U5UCAr

The Scotland Bill and 'further powers'.

A new report by the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS), the University of Stirling and the Centre for Constitutional Change, funded by the Nuffield Foundation, focuses on the so-called 'fiscal framework' which will distribute money between London and Edinburgh under the plans. The paper looked at the options for how the current arrangements could be adjusted and found that the differences could be as much as £1 billion a year after just over 10 years.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/14094201.Scotland__could_lose_billion_under_Cameron_devolution_plan_/

Risky either way. Then there's the more political issues of Trident, an EU vote and another war in the middle east. Low earning families are still going to be hit hard when universal credits roll out.

Concentrating the entire argument for independence in terms of a ( hotly disputed ) balance sheet is all very well and good. But it ignores ( Scottish ) public opinion and perceptions. Many, including former staunch Labour/No voters, as we're beginning to see, may well conclude that Osborne's fiscal policies are a step too far to be worth continuing within the UK for.

Those Labour/No voters are all that are need to swing the polls independence wise. Very few of them will see the point in remaining within a Tory dominated UK for the next decade. No economic balance sheet in the world is going to change that. Scottish Labour and Lib Dems are already softening. Perhaps another Labour leader will help swing things back... but mabye not. Because if they're perceived once again as 'Tory lite' as Milliband was.. they'll crash and burn in Scotland once again at the next elections.

( Hamish this reply is to your post also ).