Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

Mistermeaner

Generali wrote: »

There isn't an economic case for an independent Scotland. There probably was in 1979 but those days are gone and with them much of the oil.

Yes, I'm sure there is a social case to be made for an independent Scotland. If the Scots are going to be happier culturally in some way as a separate country then so be it and they should go their own way.

Scottish people should be very clear however that the drop in GDP of c. 20% will mean fewer holidays and TVs, lower levels of income and welfare, probably worse educational outcomes and certainly more preventable deaths.

I guess it depends on whether you value treating cancer or playing folk songs more.

As for the economic part of your post, the UK's deficit for the last GERS full year was about £88bn. Scotland's contribution to that was about £15bn or roughly double what it should have been on a GDP per capita basis.

Leanne elatan and shakey this is the point ∆

Counter this on a high level, no detail, with regard the 5 key areas in my previous posts.

Shakethedisease

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Must be difficult to accept that austerity "Osborne" style is working. Could easily be totally blown off course. But that's something to be addressed on another day.

Uh no. I think it depends on what you would class as austerity 'working'. I'd pass personally.

Yvette Cooper ‏@YvetteCooperMP 10 hrs10 hours ago Biggest single revenue raiser over next 5yrs announced in table 2.1 of the #Budget2016 Red Book is the #PIP cut for disabled - £4.2 bn

Shakethedisease

Mistermeaner wrote: »

Leanne elatan and shakey this is the point ∆

Counter this on a high level, no detail, with regard the 5 key areas in my previous posts.

Look I know you think you've gotten a little 'hook' here in which to keep going on about. But there is NO detail. Scotland after independence is a complete unknown. However, that's not a reason to discount the potentials which are many.

What we do know is the within the UK, Scotland's economy is estimated to be bad. Not everyone accepts that GERS is a reason to stay in the union, which is logical given that it's an estimated snapshot based on Treasury figures. For a good proportion of the country, seeing figures like those in GERS is a reason to get out of the UK absolutely asap.

No one can counter anything, until there's a Yes vote. The reasons for a Yes vote baldelectrician stated earlier in the thread. Scotland, whatever it starts out as, will ultimately be better run from Holyrood. The politics are diverging. The economics are very questionable as far as anyone believes economic 'projections' these days.

If there's a Yes vote at some future point in time. Then Scotland and deficits will no longer be your concern anyway.

The whole point of independence is to run a Scottish economy for the sole benefit of Scotland and it's people whilst Westminster runs it's economy for the benefit of London and the south east of England.

Generali

Leanne1812 wrote: »

Here it is Gen, bear in mind it is old figures now but what I'd be interested to hear is if he is making false statements.

Cheers.

http://youtu.be/qBzqN4uzyiU

Okay, I have taken out 16 substantive claims which are:

• Generate GBP10,700 in tax vs GBP9000 this year for UK average
• Spend GBP1,200 per head more
• Scots GDP per capita 18% higher than the UK
• Scottish deficit is 5% of GDP vs 7.9% for UK
• Scotland GDP per capita $42,124 per head (OECD)
• Scotland generates 9.9% of UK revenue vs 9.3% of spending
• Same average would mean GBP4.4bn. This is the 'independence dividend'.
• Scotland kept the whole Thatcher bandwagon on the road
• Barnett squeeze. Spending per head fell from 118% of UK average to 110%
• Interest rates going up every year!!!
• Scotland is charged 3.3bn for defence but gets 1.9bn of spend
• Required spend should be 2.5bn per Denmark
• GERS includes 4.1bn of interest payments- this should be lower as deficit is lower
• 10 year yields lower in lots of countries so Scotland wouldn't have to pay extra
• More powers after independence - have to be smoking something to buy that
• If Scotland lost Barnett spending would be cut by 6.2bn

Straight off the bat I can drive the following through the covers:

• Interest rates going up every year!!!. This is just wrong. Interest rates have been falling as a trend since the early 80s and pretty much month-on-month since about 2005
  
• 10 year bond yields are lower in lots of countries so Scotland wouldn't have to pay extra. We can't say whether or not this is true but it seems highly unlikely that a country with no history of debt repayment would be charged less interest than places like France, Japan and Holland
  
• More powers after independence - have to be smoking something to buy that. This is a bit unfair of me as this is post facto but it looks like Scotland is being granted substantial extra taxation powers post the No vote
  
• Barnett squeeze. I don't think I can examine this as I don't know where the figures came from. Sorry
  

So that gives me a bunch of stuff to look at. I'm going to work on the basis that this talk was given in early 2014 so figures are for the 2012-3 period.

As an aside, do you have any idea how much this sort of analysis would normally cost?

Generali

Okay. First edit. Arrrrgh!!! GERS 2012-3 was released in March 2014. As the lecture was given in Jan 2014 this can't be the source of the figures as if our friend could travel through time with financial data he certainly wouldn't be giving a prezzo on YouTube with a few thousand views!

Ah yes, I see. He's used 2011-2. As it happens, the numbers in GERS to support an independent Scotland have deteriorated substantially but that's not really our analyst's fault as he is presenting then not now.

So some more claims from the time....

Scotland generates 9.9% of UK revenue vs 9.3% of spending Yup (as of then)

Scottish deficit is 5% of GDP vs 7.9% for UK Correct

Same average would mean GBP4.4bn. This is the 'independence dividend'. Yes it would have been for that year

Scotland kept the whole Thatcher bandwagon on the road No data but I would be surprised if 9% of the population kept 100% of the population

Scotland is charged 3.3bn for defence but gets 1.9bn of spend Specious argument. England (whatever) doesn't get all the gap. Most is in places like Afganistan, Iraq etc where the UK was fighting wars at the time or in places like Germany with British defence bases. Was Scotland going to withdraw from NATO or keep up her commitments?

Required spend should be £2.5bn per Denmark. Okay, great. Now we have 2 gaps between Scotland's share of defence spending and what 'should' be spent. I note no costing is included for sacking defence personnel.

GERS includes 4.1bn of interest payments- this should be lower as deficit is lower Hmm. There are many, many ways to skin this cat. I could as easily argue (accurately) that Scotland came into the UK with £300,000 in debt. If we add compound interest to that at the BoE base rate we get pretty much to a trillion squids. I can make a very good case that most of the UK's debt is Scotland's

If Scotland lost Barnett spending would be cut by 6.2bn.Aye, and here's the rub. If you look at Scotland and the UK as a whole then generally things like employment levels, average incomes and GDP per capita are about the same. Yes in the year our friend took Scotland was doing better. I would bet good money that she's doing worse now and was in the early 90s and period of end WW2-1979. In the round, Scotland has done very well from Barnett. Not in the year considered but if we were to look at this year there would be a very different picture.

Leanne1812

I'll have a proper read tomorrow as its late and I'm tired but cheers for your comments.

I'll set up a crowdfunder and maybe raise a fiver, would that suffice?

Is it safe to assume you're doing this during your working day? Tsk tsk!

Shakethedisease

Generali wrote: »

Okay. First edit. Arrrrgh!!! GERS 2012-3 was released in March 2014. As the lecture was given in Jan 2014 this can't be the source of the figures as if our friend could travel through time with financial data he certainly wouldn't be giving a prezzo on YouTube with a few thousand views!

Ah yes, I see. He's used 2011-2. As it happens, the numbers in GERS to support an independent Scotland have deteriorated substantially but that's not really our analyst's fault as he is presenting then not now.

So some more claims from the time....

Scotland generates 9.9% of UK revenue vs 9.3% of spending Yup (as of then)

Scottish deficit is 5% of GDP vs 7.9% for UK Correct

Same average would mean GBP4.4bn. This is the 'independence dividend'. Yes it would have been for that year

Scotland kept the whole Thatcher bandwagon on the road No data but I would be surprised if 9% of the population kept 100% of the population

Scotland kept the whole Thatcher bandwagon on the road ?? Scotland voted Labour the entire time she was in power.

Scotland is charged 3.3bn for defence but gets 1.9bn of spend Specious argument. England (whatever) doesn't get all the gap. Most is in places like Afganistan, Iraq etc where the UK was fighting wars at the time or in places like Germany with British defence bases. Was Scotland going to withdraw from NATO or keep up her commitments?

There are lots of countries in NATO that don't have nukes. Scotland's defence budget now, and what was stated after independence would've been a lot lower.

Required spend should be £2.5bn per Denmark. Okay, great. Now we have 2 gaps between Scotland's share of defence spending and what 'should' be spent. I note no costing is included for sacking defence personnel.

There are lots of countries that don't pay the required spend. Only 4 out of 28 in 2014 paid the required amount ie, it's not actually required.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-31619553

GERS includes 4.1bn of interest payments- this should be lower as deficit is lower Hmm. There are many, many ways to skin this cat. I could as easily argue (accurately) that Scotland came into the UK with £300,000 in debt. If we add compound interest to that at the BoE base rate we get pretty much to a trillion squids. I can make a very good case that most of the UK's debt is Scotland's

No you couldn't. You need to read up on your history. Scotland paid £400,000 for the privilege of taking a share of...14 MILLION pounds of English debt. Try making your case after reading the correct sequence of events. And look up 'the Equivalent' in the context of the Act of Union. Then you might be accurate.

One of the most important provisions, however, was the Equivalent - the sum of money paid by England to Scotland as compensation for Scots taking a share of the £14 million English national debt. The cash, which was also used to compensate investors in the Darien scheme, was another bribe, because much of the money, which came to nearly #400,000 in total, went into the pockets of those Scots with the power to influence, or vote directly on, the new union.

http://www.scotland.org.uk/history/act-union

If Scotland lost Barnett spending would be cut by 6.2bn.Aye, and here's the rub. If you look at Scotland and the UK as a whole then generally things like employment levels, average incomes and GDP per capita are about the same. Yes in the year our friend took Scotland was doing better. I would bet good money that she's doing worse now and was in the early 90s and period of end WW2-1979. In the round, Scotland has done very well from Barnett. Not in the year considered but if we were to look at this year there would be a very different picture.

You might just want to skip the the oil prices again to be honest Gen. Because this is once again what it all boils down to in reality. Re 2013/14 You're making a lot of bets and guesses, based on very flawed history and not even knowing who does and doesn't pay things like 2.4% defence budgets. And who can and cannot be part of NATO.

Generali

Leanne1812 wrote: »

I'll have a proper read tomorrow as its late and I'm tired but cheers for your comments.

I'll set up a crowdfunder and maybe raise a fiver, would that suffice?

Is it safe to assume you're doing this during your working day? Tsk tsk!

Actually you caught me on a day looking after The Boy who is off sick. It's either this, examine how we vote in NZ or watch Pok!mon with The Boy.

Pok!mon is out for obvious reasons and NZ voting..? Hmmm.

Anyhoo, at commercial rates a piece of bespoke research like that would cost a couple of grand ($). It's quite basic and just uses public material. Remember my work next time you pass a charity box collecting for people that look after carers please .

Generali

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Scotland kept the whole Thatcher bandwagon on the road ?? Scotland voted Labour the entire time she was in power.

There are lots of countries in NATO that don't have nukes. Scotland's defence budget now, and what was stated after independence would've been a lot lower.

There are lots of countries that don't pay the required spend. Only 4 out of 28 in 2014 paid the required amount ie, it's not actually required.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-31619553

No you couldn't. You need to read up on your history. Scotland paid £400,000 for the privilege of taking a share of...14 MILLION pounds of English debt. Try making your case after reading the correct sequence of events. And look up 'the Equivalent' in the context of the Act of Union. Then you might be accurate.
http://www.scotland.org.uk/history/act-union

You might just want to skip the the oil prices again to be honest Gen. Because this is once again what it all boils down to in reality. Re 2013/14 You're making a lot of bets and guesses, based on very flawed history and not even knowing who does and doesn't pay things like 2.4% defence budgets. And who can and cannot be part of NATO.

To be clear for the hard of thinking the claims are all made by the speaker. I answer them from GERS 2011-2 where possible.

Mistermeaner

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Look I know you think you've gotten a little 'hook' here in which to keep going on about. But there is NO detail. Scotland after independence is a complete unknown. However, that's not a reason to discount the potentials which are many.

What we do know is the within the UK, Scotland's economy is estimated to be bad. Not everyone accepts that GERS is a reason to stay in the union, which is logical given that it's an estimated snapshot based on Treasury figures. For a good proportion of the country, seeing figures like those in GERS is a reason to get out of the UK absolutely asap.

No one can counter anything, until there's a Yes vote. The reasons for a Yes vote baldelectrician stated earlier in the thread. Scotland, whatever it starts out as, will ultimately be better run from Holyrood. The politics are diverging. The economics are very questionable as far as anyone believes economic 'projections' these days.

If there's a Yes vote at some future point in time. Then Scotland and deficits will no longer be your concern anyway.

Thanks for taking the time to respond. Still Don't know why you can't explain your view of the vision ref those 5 key points.

Its just confirming the view that its independence dam it at any cost