How will the economy be affected by SNP MPs; will it be for richer or for poorer and

kabayiri

Shakethedisease wrote: »

...
They took the average of the OBR and DECC oil predictions for the White paper. Ask them perhaps ? The SNP took the figs from the same place the UK Govt does for predictions. What's wrong with that ?

Well, let's start with the fact that oil has been down to $20 / $50 territory in the past. It is not unknown territory.

It is reasonable to choose a complete range to show true impact on the economy.

The reality is politicians seek to deceive the voters by choosing figures which flatter their outlook.

Shakethedisease

kabayiri wrote: »

Well, let's start with the fact that oil has been down to $20 / $50 territory in the past. It is not unknown territory.

It is reasonable to choose a complete range to show true impact on the economy.

The reality is politicians seek to deceive the voters by choosing figures which flatter their outlook.

Oil is volatile. This is not news to anyone, nor the fact that you shouldn't base an economy round it. Salmond does, as elantan says, know what he's talking about re oil prices ie, there are NO accurate solid 100% predictions to be had.

But the SNP had to base predictions on something. There was no scope or easy way round it in the White Paper other than to include reams and reams, pages and pages of alternative predictions/impacts. Which would have been too confusing for all reading it. They would've taken huge flak for not being able to 'make their minds up', and scores of headlines outlining that the SNP 'have no idea' they say this on page 40, but this on page 43. Instant dismiss.

Taking the average of the OBR and DECC figures at the time isn't unreasonable in my view. And we all know oil is volatile, which is why an oil fund was put forward by both the SNP and Scottish Labour (<--- in the last few months ). They can be forgiven for getting it wrong... because everyone else did as well.

It's very strange that you are so seemingly unforgiving of the SNP getting oil price predictions wrong that didn't really affect anything ( was a No vote ), yet so passively accepting of George Osborne getting his so wrong when it comes to austerity when it affects everyone in the UK,..and will for the next five years if he is once again, proven wrong. As he was in 2012 when he had to ease off on his austerity plans.

This sort of unconcious double standards is everywhere when it comes to the SNP. You just swallowed the 'media story' whole without checking the facts of where the SNP actually got their figures from.

re FFA, Iain MacWhirter is spot on in the Herald today and sums it all up very nicely.

But the lesson of the referendum, and even more so the General Election, is that FFA actually made relatively little impact in the end. The relentless warnings in the press about "deficits" and "black holes" didn't stop the SNP winning the biggest landslide in election history...


In fact there's reason to believe that the FFA scare, like its parent Project Fear, has actually damaged the Union rather than strengthened it. The rhetoric is entirely negative and to many Scots, demeaning. It is effectively saying that, unlike any other small country in Europe, Scotland is uniquely incapable of running its own affairs and managing its own economy.

And I also agree that Swinney might actually get away with raising taxes if he goes for it. Definite food for thought anyway...

There is little point in speculating about the precise nature of these negotiations because FFA is not going to happen. What is going to happen is much worse than FFA. Next year Scotland gets to set a Scottish rate of income tax - but no powers over the other taxes - and an invitation to use it to reverse Westminster-imposed benefit cuts.
This is a transparent fiscal trap. The Unionist parties hope the Scottish Government will repeat the "penny for Scotland" campaign of 1999 and lose votes in the election. They assume Scottish voters will never vote for increased taxes.
But it sounds as if John Swinney is minded to call their bluff and offer precisely that at the next election. And if he makes a sound moral case, he may well get away with it.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/comment/columnists/like-project-fear-fiscal-autonomy-scare-stories-demean-scotland-and-harm-the-unio.128852896

Shakethedisease

elantan wrote: »

Have to admit I did like that one, had a week chuckle at it

So did I !

MumOf2

Shakethedisease wrote: »

But the SNP had to base predictions on something. There was no scope or easy way round it in the White Paper other than to include reams and reams, pages and pages of alternative predictions/impacts. Which would have been too confusing for all reading it.

Are people living in Scotland so easily confused?


Or perhaps the SNP just treat the electorate as if they're incapable of understanding that predictions are based on different models (sorry, nearly used a more sophisticated word there, but it might have been confusing...).

Tromking

Shakethedisease wrote: »

And I also agree that Swinney might actually get away with raising taxes if he goes for it. Definite food for thought anyway...

The reaction to a SNP tax hike would certainly be a test of the oft repeated claim that Scots are to their core progressive and different to the English and of course end the English accusation that they're only progressive with other people's money.
What was "a penny for Scotland" BTW?

Thrugelmir

Shakethedisease wrote: »

will keep AAA rating, whoops lost it,

Why did the UK lose it's rating. Because the deficit wasn't being reduced quickly enough.

Choose your points wisely. As an independent Scotland faces exactly the same challenges.

Shakethedisease

Tromking wrote: »

The reaction to a SNP tax hike would certainly be a test of the oft repeated claim that Scots are to their core progressive and different to the English and of course end the English accusation that they're only progressive with other people's money.
What was "a penny for Scotland" BTW?

It was an old SNP policy to put a penny on income tax. Around 1998. However, the SNP were pretty much nowhere at the time. In-fighting and competing against Blair's 'honeymoon' period, Labour dominant in the new Holyrood parliament too. The policy crashed and burned and was dropped a few years later.

CLAPTON

Shakethedisease wrote: »

It was an old SNP policy to put a penny on income tax. Around 1998. However, the SNP were pretty much nowhere at the time. In-fighting and competing against Blair's 'honeymoon' period, Labour dominant in the new Holyrood parliament too. The policy crashed and burned and was dropped a few years later.

it was politically unpopular
but was it the right policy?

or does that no longer not matter to the SNP?

Shakethedisease

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Why did the UK lose it's rating. Because the deficit wasn't being reduced quickly enough.

And growth had stalled.

Moody's, the first of the major agencies to remove the UK from the elite club of AAA countries, blamed "subdued growth" and a "high and rising debt burden"

Choose your points wisely. As an independent Scotland faces exactly the same challenges.

I am trying.:) But think that the deficit is more a symptom than a cause. Osborne is trying to reduce the deficit by making cuts, really hard and really quickly to get it all over with. He's risking growth by doing so, and essentially repeating the same policies as when he took office in 2010, hoping for a different outcome this time round.

I was under the impression that the goal for any economy was to be a balanced one. Tough decisions yes.. but the basic aim being not to swing the pendulum too far in any direction causing a crisis elsewhere. The SNP are aiming for growth/productivity at the same time as cutting the deficit/debt more slowly, and investing in capital projects etc. I think that's probably a more sensible aim short/medium term.

Even the commentators at the FT are getting a little alarmed at Osborne's aims. He's kind of aiming for policies akin to those at the moment in Greece.. ( only on a much smaller scale of course ).

Austerity economics is self-defeating. By cutting government spending the economy shrinks, and as it shrinks government tax revenue declines as unemployment rises. Yes: austerity actually makes the debt problem worse, as has been demonstrated time and time again, most recently in Greece.

There, austerity madness has led to the economy shrinking by 25 per cent and placed half of all young people out of work. Yet after five years of this EU hair shirt, Greece's debts have become bigger and bigger and now everyone agrees they can never be paid.
Trying to promote growth by cutting spending is like trying to lose weight by cutting off your legs. Yes, you'll lose two stones; but you'll also lose the ability to move about and work...


...But to repeat: the main trigger for Britain's economic recovery was the abandonment of the Chancellor's promise to balance the books by 2015. Had he stuck to austerity, there would have been a triple-dip recession and we'd still be suffering the consequences.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/comment/columnists/to-cut-a-way-out-of-recession-we-need-growth-not-austerity-economics.128660377

CLAPTON

Shakethedisease wrote: »

And growth had stalled.





I am trying.:) But think that the deficit is more a symptom than a cause. Osborne is trying to reduce the deficit by making cuts, really hard and really quickly to get it all over with. He's risking growth by doing so, and essentially repeating the same policies as when he took office in 2010, hoping for a different outcome this time round.

I was under the impression that the goal for any economy was to be a balanced one. Tough decisions yes.. but the basic aim being not to swing the pendulum too far in any direction causing a crisis elsewhere. The SNP are aiming for growth/productivity at the same time as cutting the deficit/debt more slowly, and investing in capital projects etc. I think that's probably a more sensible aim short/medium term.

Even the commentators at the FT are getting a little alarmed at Osborne's aims. He's kind of aiming for policies akin to those at the moment in Greece.. ( only on a much smaller scale of course ).

http://www.heraldscotland.com/comment/columnists/to-cut-a-way-out-of-recession-we-need-growth-not-austerity-economics.128660377

you are in good company

the Greek government agrees with you 100%
nothing wrong with increasing debt : just go for it.