Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

Shakethedisease

Generali wrote: »

I'm not an amateur economist, I get paid for it these days. I do feel a bit like an amateur when I see my pay cheque but I'm sure I'll cheer up when my bonus is announced.:money:

As an analyst, I like to look at the actual data rather than a newspaper's rather shoddy interpretation of it. A quick antrobus turns up this:

http://worldofstuart.excellentcontent.com/repository/StandardAndPoorsKeyConsiderations.pdf

which I assume is the paper that is being referred to. Indeed it does say that Scotland would be a viable state. However, as with pretty much every economic prediction, it does rather depend on the assumptions that you use. So what assumptions does the paper use? That would be my first question. Among the key assumptions are these:

- Scotland would have its own currency (hmm, don't recall that being the plan)
- Oil prices are high (ahem)

S&P states that it is highly likely that the big banks based in Scotland (RBS and HBOS) would relocate under conditions of Scottish independence and that the state would be highly subject to changes in oil prices. It sees key risks as being oil prices falling and the banks leaving and as a result Scotland being unable to maintain its fiscal position and its gross external financing requirements.

So S&P identified the risks in 2014 that the SNP were so blithe about and now those risks have become reality. The fact is that the oil price collapsing was always the big problem Scotland could face had Yes won. Now the oil price has collapsed, Scotland isn't viable as a state. Not in its current form with very high levels of state employment (25% of the workforce is employed by the Government according to the paper from S&P) and Government spending contingent on high oil prices.

It wasn't just in one paper Generali. It was in ALL of them. All boringly skewed as you're doing ( since it was during the referendum campaign ). The quote given to both you and Hamish was 'without' North Sea oil. Not with. It did identify problems as you say, but also said none of them were insurmountable.

I think a lot of folks would take that.

Generali

Shakethedisease wrote: »

I'm female. And that's not what I said..

Anyway, look what we have here. It's possible FFA/Devo Max/Federalism and a new Vow ! So soon after the last one too. They soooo know what's on the cards don't they ?

A new Act of Union...

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/14202518.Cross_party_group_proposes_new_Act_of_Union_to_save_United_Kingdom_from_Scottish_independence/

( Too long to quote in full ).

In other words, Scotland would go.

I don't get it. From what you've said, the SNP doesn't plan a neverendum (because Scotland can't afford to go it alone as I said and S&P agree in effect).

So now we are back to referenda..? When? Not now obviously because if Yes wins, people like you are going to be lynched when the Scots realise they've been sold a pup.

Shakethedisease

Tromking wrote: »

You and your fellow Scots are free to leave whenever you want to. What is it that makes you stay I wonder?

The last time politically was the prospect of a Labour government and economically, uncertainties over staying in the EU, currency and deficits. Two of those have been removed from the equation. We can't leave whenever we want to. We need another referendum for that.

Shakethedisease

Generali wrote: »

I don't get it. From what you've said, the SNP doesn't plan a neverendum (because Scotland can't afford to go it alone as I said and S&P agree in effect).

So now we are back to referenda..? When? Not now obviously because if Yes wins, people like you are going to be lynched when the Scots realise they've been sold a pup.

If there's another referendum, over 50% of the electorate need to vote Yes. In which case, folks like me would be the majority and therefore unlikely to be subject to lynch mobs.

The SNP most certainly do plan another referendum. Which is why suddenly there are now 'cross party' mutterings on federalism and a 'New Act of Union' ( :rotfl:). See above article. It's a ( predicted ) measure to stop Scotland leaving and to offer over and above the new Scotland Act in the run up to the May elections. To try and stop an SNP majority most likely. It's a group of cross party Lords which are proposing a referendum on a new Union Act. Not the SNP who have no Lords.

Round about 2020/1 is most probable if left to the SNP/other independence supporting parties in Scotland. RISE/Greens/SSP/Solidarity/some of Labour.... Unless there's an EU exit. In which case, both Scotland and the UK's economic futures will look rather different anyway.

CLAPTON

Shakethedisease wrote: »

The last time politically was the prospect of a Labour government and economically, uncertainties over staying in the EU, currency and deficits. Two of those have been removed from the equation. We can't leave whenever we want to. We need another referendum for that.

interesting

there is still total uncertainty about scotland proposed currency and about the EU

there is no uncertainty about scotlands massive budget deficit or their dire economic prospects.

but it silly to say the scotland isn't viable as an independent nation: just look at Ireland or Greece. Scotland shares with Ireland, the easy export of its competent, well educated, young people to England who will be supporting the aging population of Scotland.

Generali

Shakethedisease wrote: »

It wasn't just in one paper Generali. It was in ALL of them. All boringly skewed as you're doing ( since it was during the referendum campaign ). The quote given to both you and Hamish was 'without' North Sea oil. Not with. It did identify problems as you say, but also said none of them were insurmountable.

I think a lot of folks would take that.

As we've seen, the problems are insurmountable. It's just sums.

The newspapers were writing when oil prices were north of $100/bbl and now they're south of $30/bbl and falling. The big risk that S&P identified has come to pass.

I realise that you feel a bit of a fool because you've identified a really authoritative source that you thought supported your position and it turns out that it shows that S&P agreed with mine from two years ago and that I was ultimately right.

So how are you planning on selling splendid, self-imposed poverty to your fellow countrymen and women? Or are you just planning to hope that the problem sorts itself out and continue to quote ever more out of date figures?

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Generali wrote: »

So how are you planning on selling splendid, self-imposed poverty to your fellow countrymen and women? Or are you just planning to hope that the problem sorts itself out and continue to quote ever more out of date figures?

That appears to be the Indy campaign's plan so far....

Tromking

CLAPTON wrote: »

but it silly to say the scotland isn't viable as an independent nation: just look at Ireland or Greece. Scotland shares with Ireland, the easy export of its competent, well educated, young people to England who will be supporting the aging population of Scotland.

Indeed.
Perhaps the Nats have aspirations that Scotland in times of economic strife will like the other two countries you mention prefer to have their "economic levers" controlled by the Bundestag instead?
German style austerity in Greece and Ireland is obviously more palatable to a Nat than being under the English Yoke (£1700 per capita extra!) via Westminster.:)

.string.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

... You have to realise that the SNP can't do spin. No one will give them the extensive positive air or print to do so ...

SNP spin to argue that the SNP does not do spin, spiced up with a little whinge for effect.

You do come up with some rib-tickling howlers Shakey. I liked that one.

Somehow I think that qualifies for an award, although precisely what I'm not sure.

Spin of the week? Congratulations.

.string.

Talking of tax levers and the skilled way they wil be used by the SNP Scottish Government,

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/11373197/Wealthy-Scots-considering-fleeing-high-SNP-taxes.html

Wealthy Scots 'considering fleeing high SNP taxes'[/ quote]

The rest of us will have to sit back and admire their handywork.

Go for it Swinney