Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

elantan

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Getting ready to waggle ma wallies you mean surely ?:D

Lol ... it will be interesting to watch from the sidelines this time round ... obviously if it looks like the party in George Square or Calton hill is good I will have to join ... and may go for a few meetings through WFI and CW etc ... but no more canvassing or street light climbing for me

mwpt

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Also worth reminding you that Westminster runs Scotland's economy not the SNP. So when it comes to 'blame' there is a reason for it. It's because it's true. We'll see what happens over the summer anyway.

Because Tories!

elantan

mwpt wrote: »

Because Tories!

Unless your suggesting Labour are in power in WM ?

kabayiri

Leanne1812 wrote: »

...
So, we need sympathy to support Scottish industries? I thought we were a collective......

Is your statement evidence that industry is London centric and if we don't kow tow then we will suffer financially? Seems like it sadly.

We've been London-centric for years. Nothing I can say or do will change that. The world financial industry has grown tremendously and with it the need for these financial hubs.

If it wasn't London it would be Paris or Frankfurt or another place.

Who told you we are a collective? That's politician speak again. I'd advise treating it with a light touch.

The UK and with it Scotland have some very difficult spending decisions to make. Any money directed towards supporting the oil industry will take away from supporting something else.

Perhaps priorities rather than sympathy.

Thrugelmir

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Get back to us all with your ideas once the Scottish Govt actually has a few levers.

Free University places, free prescriptions, free eye tests, free "personal care" are all choices. You can only spend money once.

Then there's off balance sheet funding of construction projects. What's the burden on the taxpayer. £10 billion? Hardly insignificant given the wider economic slowdown which seems unavoidable.

Seems as if levers are already being pulled. Are they the right ones though.

Generali

Shakethedisease wrote: »

It may do. But we were talking about GERS and all the hysterics, headlines and stuff that goes on every year when it comes out. I'm not for one minute saying that things are all rosy in the garden and that there aren't potentially quite significant problems, and lots of them. What I'm less convinced about is if they are insurmountable. Even the way this hypothetical 15bn deficit is talked about is disingenuous as if Scotland needs to have a balance sheet of 0 before independence could ever be a vague consideration.

But lets not get carried away and pretend that deficits are something unique to Scotland. England/rUK also has a significant deficit. Albeit not estimated to be quite as crippling.

The deficit can sustainably grow at the same rate as GDP as ultimately that output will support future interest payments on that debt.

As Scottish GDP is about £170,000,000,000 and growth in real GDP is about 2%, Scotland can sustain a deficit of something like £3,500,000,000 per year.

Of course as the SNP wants to build a Sovereign Wealth Fund, the deficit would have to be eliminated entirely and a surplus introduced instead. To have a SWF growing at the rate of £1 a year would require cuts in Government spending of £15,000,000,000 for the year of the last GERS. The next one is looking like the deficit is going to be significantly worse due to the continuing lows in the oil price.

Given the way that the deficit is falling across the UK but rising as measured in Scotland it is possible that Scotland's deficit will equal the UK's by the time of the next election!

Mistermeaner

Yes but *insert some random incoherent economically illiterate bs followed by**

kabayiri

Generali wrote: »

...
As Scottish GDP is about £170,000,000,000 and growth in real GDP is about 2%, Scotland can sustain a deficit of something like £3,500,000,000,000 per year.
...

3 too many noughts in that deficit I suspect Gen

It would be nice if they could sustain 3.5 trillion deficit, but unlikely in the extreme.

Generali

kabayiri wrote: »

3 too many noughts in that deficit I suspect Gen

It would be nice if they could sustain 3.5 trillion deficit, but unlikely in the extreme.

Haha, yes. Scotland could sustain a deficit of that level for about 10 minutes! I will amend accordingly.

Mistermeaner

I must have missed it although I'm sure I've asked loads of times. I'll ask again:

Can someone please explaining simple terms how Scotland will balance its public finances with the evil Westminster gone on the basis of / in terms of:

1. The block grant (Barnett) going going gone
2. A share of the uk total debt (this is unavoidable)
3. Taxation up / Down / the same
4. Expenditure up /down / the same
5. Borrowing

............
*************
Eg:

1. Keep your Money Westminster this will be zero
2. We will only accept 5bil of the debt
3. We will raise 10% more tax by getting rid of the 20% band and going straight to 40%
4. No change to spending.
5. We will borrow an extra 5bil a year for the first 5 years while wait for oil to go back up
*************

I'm just desperately trying to understand the vision, not the details, of how the proindi supporters think i scotland will work.