The New Fat Scotland 'Thanks for all the Fish' Thread.

Generali

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Is this all based on GERS again ? There's been a few interesting rebuttals going on lately.

Correct, it does not cover all economic activity. Regional GDP is dealt with in the GVA data, unemployment by regional unemployment data and household spending in the Household Spending Survey for example.

GERS is, however, a reflection of how an independent Scotland would look fiscally and the figures are shocking. If Scotland had just become independent it is hard to overstate the extent of the fiscal crisis the country would be facing. You'd be looking at cuts of about a fifth in the size of the state. Getting rid of Trident and HS2 isn't going to be anywhere near the savings needed. You'd be looking at wholesale slash and burn policies: schools, hospitals and police stations would need to go and the staff sacked. And that's before you work out how you are going to pay for a whole new system of Government.


What fifth of what the Government in Scotland does in Scotland do you think you could live without?

The absolute best case scenario would be that custs of about £8bn would be needed. You could cut two thirds of the NHS, that'd do it or get rid of a third of the welfare state or the education system. Don't forget that 2015-6 is highly likely to show figures for GERS that are even worse than 2014-5 given that changes in Scottish finances are so closely linked to oil prices.

Shakethedisease

Rinoa wrote: »

When Oil was $100+ Alex Salmond was very happy quoting from them.

Of course, when the price of oil plummeted nobody believed them anymore.

No one has ever really believed GERS as it's always been an overtly political tool rather than anything else. It's origins have never inspired much confidence.

GERS: origins

The motivation for producing the initial GERS was political. GERS had been commissioned by the Conservative Secretary of State for Scotland, Ian Lang: and this is what he said about it, in a leaked memorandum to John Major:
“I judge that it is just what is needed at present in our campaign to maintain the initiative and undermine the other parties. This initiative could score against all of them.”

Shakethedisease

Generali wrote: »

Correct, it does not cover all economic activity. Regional GDP is dealt with in the GVA data, unemployment by regional unemployment data and household spending in the Household Spending Survey for example.

GERS is, however, a reflection of how an independent Scotland would look fiscally and the figures are shocking. If Scotland had just become independent it is hard to overstate the extent of the fiscal crisis the country would be facing. You'd be looking at cuts of about a fifth in the size of the state. Getting rid of Trident and HS2 isn't going to be anywhere near the savings needed. You'd be looking at wholesale slash and burn policies: schools, hospitals and police stations would need to go and the staff sacked. And that's before you work out how you are going to pay for a whole new system of Government.


What fifth of what the Government in Scotland does in Scotland do you think you could live without?

The absolute best case scenario would be that custs of about £8bn would be needed. You could cut two thirds of the NHS, that'd do it or get rid of a third of the welfare state or the education system. Don't forget that 2015-6 is highly likely to show figures for GERS that are even worse than 2014-5 given that changes in Scottish finances are so closely linked to oil prices.

So you base all your posts facts and figures on GERS figures and nothing much else at all ?

I guess if it's any consolation you're not the only one. But it must get a little bit boring just constantly re-iterating the same stuff over and over again to people like me who don't listen to you. And think you've been played like a fiddle and brainwashed with fiscal black hole mantra's over the last few years.

I assume you think the same of me.

There's some papers here that might interest you. Some alternative views without headlines behind them. Enjoy, or not as the case may be. But I'm getting heartily fed up with GERS and I assume everyone else is on these boards too ( and yes, I've read Kevin Hague's report too, which the last link is a rebuttal of ).

http://www.cuthbert1.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/

http://www.cuthbert1.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/new_page_3.htm

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9RObbv_eTgHdkdnTlBPOS1MS1U/view

chewmylegoff

C'mon shakey, I'm interested to know, do you think 30% basic tax, 50% tax above £50k and no increase in public spending would be a price worth paying for (a bit more) self determination?

kabayiri

Shakethedisease wrote: »

...
I guess
...

We had our suspicions

I think the best independence game plan for the SNP after a Yes vote would be to create a right old sh1tst0rm, and get Westminster to pay them off just to keep the peace.

If the SNP asked for £150bn independence compo, that might buy you 5 to 10 years of free prescriptions n stuff.

Generali

Shakethedisease wrote: »

So you base all your posts facts and figures on GERS figures and nothing much else at all ?

I guess if it's any consolation you're not the only one. But it must get a little bit boring just constantly re-iterating the same stuff over and over again to people like me who don't listen to you. And think you've been played like a fiddle and brainwashed with fiscal black hole mantra's over the last few years.

I assume you think the same of me.

There's some papers here that might interest you. Some alternative views without headlines behind them. Enjoy, or not as the case may be. But I'm getting heartily fed up with GERS and I assume everyone else is on these boards too ( and yes, I've read Kevin Hague's report too, which the last link is a rebuttal of ).

http://www.cuthbert1.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/

http://www.cuthbert1.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/new_page_3.htm

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9RObbv_eTgHdkdnTlBPOS1MS1U/view

You seriously want me to wade through that lot?

You can 'reject' GERS if you want but it is the Scottish Government's official figures and was being used 18 months ago to make an economic case for Scottish independence by the Yes campaign!

It seems to me that the SNP simply rejects any number that isn't helpful to its cause and GERS is extremely unhelpful. It shows the massive extent of cuts that would be required by independence, cuts that actually would mean people dying.

Shakethedisease

Generali wrote: »

You seriously want me to wade through that lot?

You can 'reject' GERS if you want but it is the Scottish Government's official figures and was being used 18 months ago to make an economic case for Scottish independence by the Yes campaign!

It seems to me that the SNP simply rejects any number that isn't helpful to its cause and GERS is extremely unhelpful. It shows the massive extent of cuts that would be required by independence, cuts that actually would mean people dying.

No I don't want you to wade through anything. I put them there for anyone interested, and to point out that we only ever hear your side of the debate, which never ever changes and has got to the stage now, where you're asserting that people will die to prove a point.

There are other economic papers regarding GERS and lots of them too. They never get headlined though for obvious reasons. Should you ever wish to at least try and understand where the other side of the independence debate is coming from. The links I've provided you with would give you a vague understanding of where the starting point is. No one is rejecting GERS. However there are many areas lacking and significant failings within it. All pointed out by several economists both in the past and currently. Also there is absolutely no getting away from the fact that GERS started off as, and remains, a political tool. More so now than ever.

Or else don't bother. It's no skin off anyone's nose.

What we have shown in this chapter is how GERS, from its inception, was an essentially political document: and how, despite recent technical improvements, it remains the focus of an inherently sterile annual debate. The position is not, however, hopeless. What we argue is that the key to moving on to an altogether more productive debate is to replace the partial treatment in GERS with a full set of balanced accounts, showing all of the external flows into and out of the Scottish economy.

For the UK, such a set of balanced accounts is available in the shape of the Pink Book – and such accounts would normally be expected to be available for any significant developed economy.

Production of such accounts would remove the political bias inherent in the current GERS format. Attention would then naturally focus on the outflow of private finance from Scotland: and on the question of how this outflow could best be utilised for the greater and lasting benefit of the Scottish economy. Availability of the kind of accounts we are suggesting would do nothing less than transform the current sterile debate about Scotland’s future.

GERS: Where now? Cuthbert, J. R., Cuthbert M.: Chapter in the book “Scotland’s Economic Future” edited by Donald MacKay, published by Reform Scotland, October 2011.


We're not getting the full picture, and it's time we ALL did.

Shakethedisease

kabayiri wrote: »

We had our suspicions

I think the best independence game plan for the SNP after a Yes vote would be to create a right old sh1tst0rm, and get Westminster to pay them off just to keep the peace.

If the SNP asked for £150bn independence compo, that might buy you 5 to 10 years of free prescriptions n stuff.

GERS won't matter. It'll only take the prospect of another Conservative Govt in power after 2020, especially if Boris is at the helm. Just like loads of people in England voted Tory in order to keep the SNP out. I can assure you the reverse will happen should Boris Johnson ever lead the Conservative party. Scotland will vote Yes in droves rather than have him anywhere near the Scottish economy.*

* should the SNP gain a majority in May, a Brexit not occur and that Johnson does indeed take over from Cameron.

uncreative

chewmylegoff wrote: »

C'mon shakey, I'm interested to know, do you think 30% basic tax, 50% tax above £50k and no increase in public spending would be a price worth paying for (a bit more) self determination?

Ehhrrmm.....let me just clear this one right up.....

No.

Generali

Shakethedisease wrote: »

GERS won't matter. It'll only take the prospect of another Conservative Govt in power after 2020, especially if Boris is at the helm. Just like loads of people in England voted Tory in order to keep the SNP out. I can assure you the reverse will happen should Boris Johnson ever lead the Conservative party. Scotland will vote Yes in droves rather than have him anywhere near the Scottish economy.*

* should the SNP gain a majority in May, a Brexit not occur and that Johnson does indeed take over from Cameron.

Well Scottish people told You Gov why they voted as they did in the referendum and only 10% of them voted Yes to keep out a Tory Government and the myth that it is the old that prevented independence was shown to be rubbish too as only the younger-middle aged voted for independence, under 25s and over 39s voted strongly to remain in the Union.

The fiscal case which the Yes campaign found so effective has been smashed on the rocks of a low oil price and the Conservatives, far from being the enemy within, are seeing their share of voting intention increasing faster than any other major party in Scotland. Presumably because they have been managing the British economy very effectively.

Everyone that is going to vote voted in the last referendum so there's no additional support coming from getting the vote out so really you're hoping that there is an appetite for going through the entire referendum campaign again only with a worse-faring economy and somehow getting a different result.

Good luck with that!!!:D