We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The New Fat Scotland 'Thanks for all the Fish' Thread.
Comments
-
baldelectrician wrote: »Scotland has its own civil service as well and the figures above include DWP and benefits offices in Scotland (which will still be there when independence happens)
The fact remains that the MOD, home office and many UK civil service jobs are based outside Scotland (like the DVLA and passport service).
Currently Scottish taxpayers pay for these and the benefits go elsewhere.
I think you'll find that it's English taxpayers that pay for them. Scotland does get that £8 bn annual subsidy from (mainly) English taxpayers.
There is no getting over the fact that "when independence happens" this hypothetical independent Scotland will have to find that money from somewhere else, i.e more taxes, or less spending.
I know I've said that before, but people still don't seem to get it. They seem to want to ignore the fact that Scotland is running a large fiscal deficit, and that independence means spending a lot of money doing things like setting up a central bank.0 -
I think you'll find that it's English taxpayers that pay for them. Scotland does get that £8 bn annual subsidy from (mainly) English taxpayers.
There is no getting over the fact that "when independence happens" this hypothetical independent Scotland will have to find that money from somewhere else, i.e more taxes, or less spending.
I know I've said that before, but people still don't seem to get it. They seem to want to ignore the fact that Scotland is running a large fiscal deficit, and that independence means spending a lot of money doing things like setting up a central bank.
It`s as if Nationalists deliberately ignore reality,it`s either that or they genuinely have no idea about how much we are subsidised.Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - Albert Einstein.
“The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them.”-
Orwell.0 -
They just have no idea. Asking for data is met with some segway into another grievance which is also totally unfounded.
I've come across more convincing arguments from children, and that's not an exaggeration.0 -
TrickyTree83 wrote: »They just have no idea. Asking for data is met with some segway into another grievance which is also totally unfounded.
I've come across more convincing arguments from children, and that's not an exaggeration.
There is no reliable nor static data. That's the point.UK Regional Trade Data has been restated to allocate to Scotland the benefit of oil sales previously allocated to the head offices of the companies making the sales in the past..Note that only Scotland runs a consistent trade surplus according to the Regional Trade Data....
...for those with an interest in Scottish economics the implication is at least interesting. The persistent claim that Scotland has a weak economy and is unable to sustain itself is not supported by this data. The chance that it may now and certainly did, support the UK economy as a whole, is, however supported. This will need more work. I offer it as a curiosity for now, but one that certainly needs to be investigated further.It all seems so stupid it makes me want to give up.
But why should I give up, when it all seems so stupid ?0 -
Shakethedisease wrote: »There is no reliable nor static data. That's the point.
The methodologies as we've seen this week are prone to losing and gaining the odd 10bn here and there from year to year.
http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2017/08/12/scotland-is-the-only-part-of-the-uk-running-a-consistent-trade-surplus/
The only guy saying the data shows the opposite, that Scotland supports the rest of the UK. Institute after institute says otherwise, but they're all wrong, so is the UK statistics authority. This guy is on the money, why isn't he chancellor?!
Pull the other one. You know as well as I that the data is fine. These "issues" have been investigated by many and the only person to find them wanting is this outcast who gave birth to Corbynomics. Forgive me if I'm unimpressed.0 -
TrickyTree83 wrote: »The only guy saying the data shows the opposite, that Scotland supports the rest of the UK. Institute after institute says otherwise, but they're all wrong, so is the UK statistics authority. This guy is on the money, why isn't he chancellor?!
Pull the other one. You know as well as I that the data is fine. These "issues" have been investigated by many and the only person to find them wanting is this outcast who gave birth to Corbynomics. Forgive me if I'm unimpressed.
The data referred to is HMRC data. There has been a methodology change which has resulted in an extra 10 billion being allocated to Scotland's exporting figs somewhere.
Crap data in, crap data out. The data is not fine which is the point Murphy and others are making, regardless of the stat figures themselves.Prior to December 2016, Oil Exports that shipped directly from the rigs were counted towards company HQs. The methodology has now been updated as stated above.
This change in methodology resulted in Scotland’s allocation within RTS of the ‘Mineral Fuels’ category for 2015 to climb from £588m to £6,825m and the allocation to the ‘Unknown’ region to fall from £8,826m to £1,529m.It all seems so stupid it makes me want to give up.
But why should I give up, when it all seems so stupid ?0 -
Shakethedisease wrote: »The data referred to is HMRC data. There has been a methodology change which has resulted in an extra 10 billion being allocated to Scotland's exporting figs somewhere.
Crap data in, crap data out. The data is not fine which is the point Murphy and others are making, regardless of the stat figures themselves.
http://archive.is/NBhgD#selection-385.0-385.380
The Fraser of Allander institute told Richard Murphy he was talking crap, he responded by saying the rules are bias - despite being in line with internationally recognised standards on statistics. The guy just took a position, was found to be wrong and is now bitter about the whole thing.0 -
TrickyTree83 wrote: »The Fraser of Allander institute told Richard Murphy he was talking crap, he responded by saying the rules are bias - despite being in line with internationally recognised standards on statistics. The guy just took a position, was found to be wrong and is now bitter about the whole thing.
The below is an HMRC methodology change. Nothing to do with Richard Murphy. Are you disputing HMRC figures now ?This change in methodology resulted in Scotland’s allocation within RTS of the ‘Mineral Fuels’ category for 2015 to climb from £588m to £6,825m and the allocation to the ‘Unknown’ region to fall from £8,826m to £1,529m.If you look at the figures published in 2016, they put Scottish production of “Mineral Fuels” at £1.76bn for 2014 and £588m for 2015.
But the latest figures backdate those numbers up to £10.6bn and £6.8bn respectively.
In just two years, then, Scotland’s economy has suddenly produced over £15bn more than the official UK government figures had previously claimed it did.
Looking forward to your explanation but won't hold my breath for one.It all seems so stupid it makes me want to give up.
But why should I give up, when it all seems so stupid ?0 -
Just listening to the Scottish news and we are the worst country in the EU for drugs use.
What a disgrace the Scottish Government are doing nothing about this.
They should be ashamed of themselves.0 -
Shakethedisease wrote: »..Looking forward to your explanation but won't hold my breath for one.
Well, I've been looking forward to your explanation of how any independent Scotland would find that £8 bn or so to replace the subsidy it currently receives.:)
I haven't been holding my breath.
But it is just a tad hypocritical for you to demand an "explanation" when you are so unwilling to so so yourself.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

Categories
- All Categories
- 351.4K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.8K Spending & Discounts
- 244.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599.6K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.1K Life & Family
- 257.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards