Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

.string.

The right levers? But the SNP already has them, namely the ability to increase taxes enormously and reduce the luxury elements of welfare. The same "levers" that would be used in Natland. But of course that would not be rational at present while the SNP deficit is compensated for by UK subsidies. The SNP balances the books if someone else makes up the shortfall.

On another matter, I struggle to understand why, if I go shopping at 9am instead of 10am on a Sunday it is somehow a disaster for wages in Scotland. Weird economics. But that seems par for the course.

Rinoa

.string. wrote: »

The right levers? But the SNP already has them, namely the ability to increase taxes enormously and reduce the luxury elements of welfare. The same "levers" that would be used in Natland. But of course that would not be rational at present while the SNP deficit is compensated for by UK subsidies. The SNP balances the books if someone else makes up the shortfall.

Apparently the levers are secret. It's not necessary to know what these levers do, how they work, nor how they will be employed.

But Shakey 100% believes the SNP have them. They will only work of course when Scotland is independent, after which time said levers will magically transform Scotland's economy, wipe out the £15Bn deficit and bring prosperity to all.

CLAPTON

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Yes.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/09/millennials-snp-sunday-trading-laws-problem-independence

Cameron fought for three years with every fibre of his being to keep Scottish MP's at Westminster. So here we all are. If it had been Scottish Labour MP's still around, there would've been no question of them voting with the Tories on this. I fail to see the difference because they happen to be SNP MP's.

of course you would
the SNP have lost all sense of moral purpose and simply want to cause as much harm as possible
The difference is a sense of morality which you completely lack.

No surprise there as I've posted many times how the SNP and their acolytes have no morality but blindly justify the unjustifiable.

Of course you see no difference as you have no principle to guide you.

What does amuse me however, is the thought that if you were not independent the SNP couldn't have voted and yet the vile English could have passed the change to Sunday shopping and seriously damaged the people of scotland. Presumably faced with this outrage the SNP would have demanded to be re-united with England

Generali

Mistermeaner wrote: »

I follow this thread out of some perverse need to always remind myself how stupid some people are.

Its not worth commenting specifcally or debating. Eletan has proved herself to be genuinely thick. Shakey surprises me as appears intelligent but to counter that telegraph article with 'yeah but if Scotland was independent' ...... The only possible answer is independent Scotland = massive taxes and low spending. There is no alternative. To claim otherwise is stupidity

The thing is that there is no logical or coherent argument to counter the GERS figures is ludicrous. According to Mr Salmond, if Scotland had been daft enough to vote Yes 18 months ago, independence day was set for 24th March 2016.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-scotland-britain-independence-day-idUSBRE9AN0G020131124

With an immediate deficit on Day 1 of £12 per person per day in Scotland some very hard choices would be having to be made (assumes a working week of 5 days with 4 weeks off a year and a population of 5,295,000).

The deficit in the long term can only grow along with the ability to service it and that figure is represented by GDP growth. Scottish GDP is growing at 2.5% pa although obviously that figure is flattered by the massive subsidy from London.

To get the growth in debt down to something sustainable would require a cut in spending of something like £11bn or 16% of Government spending. That is what we economists call 'shed loads of cash'.

As for the SNP voting on shopping hours in the UK. Well it goes against their election promises so I guess that's between the SNP and their consciences.

Shakethedisease

Rinoa wrote: »

You don't really think I proved your point, but you have to reply with something I guess.

You did. GERS releases either have one side of the debate going on about dodging bullets, and Ruth Davidson thanking No voters. Breathing a sigh of relief that we remain part of the UK.

But for every one of the above there is another who feels that GERS releases are a damning confirmation of the sheer state the UK has let Scotland's accounts and economic performance get to, year upon year.. while Westminster has been in control of most of it. A real impetus to get out of the UK asap.

One or the other today in most discussions. The boringly predictable dependence posts above are fine. But you have to take into account that the dodge the bullet rhetoric is no longer a majority representation of Scottish voters. In fact, shoving it down Scots voters throats every 5 minutes 24/7 may even be working against these days to be honest.

GERS is either a reason to stay in, or a reason to get out. Those who after all this time are still wavering between...imho are looking for other reasons to stay or leave beyond GERS. The Tories 2020 should finish the job. Or a Brexit if it happens.

Shakethedisease

Generali wrote: »

The thing is that there is no logical or coherent argument to counter the GERS figures is ludicrous. According to Mr Salmond, if Scotland had been daft enough to vote Yes 18 months ago, independence day was set for 24th March 2016.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-scotland-britain-independence-day-idUSBRE9AN0G020131124

With an immediate deficit on Day 1 of £12 per person per day in Scotland some very hard choices would be having to be made (assumes a working week of 5 days with 4 weeks off a year and a population of 5,295,000).

The deficit in the long term can only grow along with the ability to service it and that figure is represented by GDP growth. Scottish GDP is growing at 2.5% pa although obviously that figure is flattered by the massive subsidy from London.

To get the growth in debt down to something sustainable would require a cut in spending of something like £11bn or 16% of Government spending. That is what we economists call 'shed loads of cash'.

As for the SNP voting on shopping hours in the UK. Well it goes against their election promises so I guess that's between the SNP and their consciences.

There have been plenty of GERS articles today. For and countering. Little point countering them once again with you. Is pointless as we're both entrenched in our positions and we'll never change them most likely.

The SNP have did what they said they would do. Looked after their constituents best interests at Westminster. That's what MP's are for. Shock, horror. Cameron wanted to keep Scottish MP's at Westminster come hell or high water. That's what he got. Suck it up buttercup.

The Conservatives formed the government after the last election because they had an overall majority. Not an overall majority-if-you-don't-count-the-SNP.

Generali

Shakethedisease wrote: »

There have been plenty of GERS articles today. For and countering. Little point countering them once again with you. Is pointless as we're both entrenched in our positions and we'll never change them most likely.

The SNP have did what they said they would do. Looked after their constituents best interests at Westminster. That's what MP's are for. Shock, horror. Cameron wanted to keep Scottish MP's at Westminster come hell or high water. That's what he got. Suck it up buttercup.

That is my own analysis of the GERS figures. The only thing I quote that doesn't come from the Scottish Government directly is the date of 24th March 2016 as being when Mr Salmond wanted independence.

There really is nothing to counter. The Scottish state's finances would be in a horrible mess in 2 weeks' time and getting worse. We already have some insight into how the next set of figures are likely to look and unless something very dramatic happens in the oil market then it ain't gonna be pretty my friend.

Ironically, the SNP's insistence that the Scottish Government should be seen as a separate entity with separate accounts could end up dealing a pretty mighty blow to Scotland's finances. At some point the English, especially Londoners, are going to work out the extent to which they are subsidising the Scot's free this and that and I suspect the results are not going to be pleasing for the typical subsidy-engorged SNP voter.

As the UK's deficit for 2015-6 now looks to be set to be about £69 billion, Scotland's numbers look really bad on the face of it. We'll just have to wait for 2015-6 to see exactly how bad but I should be able to put together a rough and ready draft.

mwpt

Shakethedisease wrote: »

The Tories 2020 should finish the job. Or a Brexit if it happens.

It must be really nice to have someone else to blame for everything. No matter what, "Tories did it".

wotsthat

mwpt wrote: »

It must be really nice to have someone else to blame for everything. No matter what, "Tories did it".

The first rule of nationalism - find a 'they' to blame.

The SNP have played the nationalism game well and used 'Westminster' as the they (they mean English but that's by the by). However, their quickest route to independence is to rile up some English nationalism but, despite their best efforts that hasn't happened.

The formula that has recently worked so well in Scotland has failed in rUK. Must be a worry - maybe the fairy dust won't work long enough to see independence.

The Sunday shopping thing is hilarious. Makes the SNP look like a sulking child rather than a party fit to govern an independent country.

Mistermeaner

Help me with some maths:


Block grant + some taxes = Scotland's money = £a

Scotland's spending =£b

Currently a<b therefore the deficit grows, the hole plugged by borrowing


Under independence block grant will be less and/or eventually gone. So all things being equal (no change to taxes and spending) the deficit will be larger

An iscotland will have complete control of taxes and spending. That is what the SNP want and that is what shakey wants. We are told that this will be better for Scotland.

Can someone please explain how the values of £a and £b will be different for an IScotland such that not only is the removal of the block grant neutralised but also how £a is increased without increasing taxes and/or £b is reduced without reducing spending such that the deficit position is improved?