Scotland and Greece

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

antrobus wrote: »

It depends on what exactly you think constitutes a "Greek level of austerity".

Given that you are talking about a deficit of £12.4 billion (8.1% of GDP) for 2013/14, even with an illustrative geographic share of North Sea revenue, compared to £97.3 billion (5.6% of GDP) for the UK as a whole, there is clearly a requirement for more austerity, not less.

And of course you have to factor in the fact that the "illustrative geographic share of North Sea revenue" of around £4 billion was based on Brent Crude trading at $100 a barrel, as opposed to $50, so that's another hole to plug. Would the required fiscal contraction of 2% of GDP required to offset the loss in oil revenues qualify as a "Greek". I don't know really, but it is certainly in the same ballpark.

I think people arguing to the contrary really just don't realise the scale of the numbers involved.

IveSeenTheLight

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Then explain how we get our deficit down to acceptable levels without it.... The UK deficit is falling, Scotland's is rising and wholly unsustainable without subsidy.

Hamish, you come across as someone with intelligence.
You realise what these GDP percentages are based and and understand my point about moving to an economy no longer dependent on oil.
I therefore wonder, why you are asking this?

Your so fixated in the here and now and do not appear to be reflective of how we can adapt and change to attack the economy from a different perspective

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Why would we take that chance?

Always the extremist and sensationalising a situation without actually addressing the point made

Thrugelmir

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

I understand that the SNP MSP's have declared that they wish to reduce the deficit, just at a slower rate.

Besides the declaration perhaps some numbers to substantiate the thinking. Higher debt = Increased Interest Charges. Austerity isn't as simple as some seem to suggest. Arguably could be viewed as buying votes rather than addressing what are structural issues. Just like the base rate being at rock bottom. There's no contingency when the next recession hits. As there'll be one. That's a certainty. What the cause will be who knows.

antrobus

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Hamish, you come across as someone with intelligence.
You realise what these GDP percentages are based and and understand my point about moving to an economy no longer dependent on oil.
I therefore wonder, why you are asking this?

Your so fixated in the here and now and do not appear to be reflective of how we can adapt and change to attack the economy from a different perspective

Always the extremist and sensationalising a situation without actually addressing the point made

This thread poses the question "If Scotland ever does go independent do you think Scotland will end up like Greece? "

I would have to say that, if this hypothetically independent Scotland ended up being run by the kind of people who would rather spout nonsense about adapting and changing to attack the economy from a different perspective, rather than deal with the harsh reality of a deficit approaching 10% of GDP, then it is a rock solid certainty that Scotland will end up like Greece.:)

IveSeenTheLight

antrobus wrote: »

This thread poses the question "If Scotland ever does go independent do you think Scotland will end up like Greece? "

I would have to say that, if this hypothetically independent Scotland ended up being run by the kind of people who would rather spout nonsense about adapting and changing to attack the economy from a different perspective, rather than deal with the harsh reality of a deficit approaching 10% of GDP, then it is a rock solid certainty that Scotland will end up like Greece.:)

LOL, Appreciate the compliment, but I do not run the country.

P.S. If the stand still, you actually end up going backwards as others pass you by. The only way to succeed is to continually adapt and change. If you want to stand still, then you are the business / economy which will ultimately fail

antrobus

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

LOL, Appreciate the compliment, but I do not run the country....

I wasn't suggesting that you did. I was simply considering the likely consequences of Scotland being run by people with a similar outlook.

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

...P.S. If the stand still, you actually end up going backwards as others pass you by. The only way to succeed is to continually adapt and change. If you want to stand still, then you are the business / economy which will ultimately fail

And the first order of business is to "adapt and change" to cope with a fiscal deficit approaching 10% of GDP. If you "stand still" and do nothing about it, then you will indeed "ultimately fail".

IveSeenTheLight

antrobus wrote: »

I wasn't suggesting that you did. I was simply considering the likely consequences of Scotland being run by people with a similar outlook.



And the first order of business is to "adapt and change" to cope with a fiscal deficit approaching 10% of GDP. If you "stand still" and do nothing about it, then you will indeed "ultimately fail".

I absolutely agree that the deficit needs to be addressed.

The root cause of how we are in the situation as it is, is down to the way we have run our economy.

Therefore by definition, we need to change and adapt to do things differently in order to achieve the desired outcome.

There are simplified two ways of achieving this.
1) Reduce your spending beyond what your currently earning to live within your means and start to pay back the debt incurred (reduced standard of living)
2) Increase the revenue received to meet the increased expenditure (maintain standards of living, but trickier to increase revenue)

Of course ideally, we would be looking at a mixture of the two.

We certainly need to "change", which is what I am advocating.

antrobus

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

I absolutely agree that the deficit needs to be addressed.

The root cause of how we are in the situation as it is, is down to the way we have run our economy.

Therefore by definition, we need to change and adapt to do things differently in order to achieve the desired outcome.

There are simplified two ways of achieving this.
1) Reduce your spending beyond what your currently earning to live within your means and start to pay back the debt incurred (reduced standard of living)

2) Increase the revenue received to meet the increased expenditure (maintain standards of living, but trickier to increase revenue)

Of course ideally, we would be looking at a mixture of the two.

We certainly need to "change", which is what I am advocating.

'Increasing the revenue received' is an interesting euphemism for 'putting up taxes', but I think you'll find that increasing taxes tends to reduce people's standard of living, since they don't have the money anymore, the government does.

Both tax increases and spending cuts count as 'austerity'. If it makes you happier to re-label austerity as 'adapt and change' then do carry on, but it don't change nothin'.:)

zaax

Best they go and good luck. The EC will provide a fence along the border and a building for the full bore (3rd country) passport controls, because they won't get into the EC because of the Spanish Basque problems. Apparently Sheltand will stay in the UK as they don't like the Scots

CLAPTON

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

We certainly need to "change", which is what I am advocating.

you must feel an enormous affinity for the Tories who are advocating change and reform in education, health care, benefits, transport, regional powers etc and having to fight the reactionary forces of Labour, SNP ect who are desperate to stop any changes and who want to continue the old policies of borrow borrow borrow