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

wotsthat

Shakethedisease wrote: »

I wasn't talking about anyone moaning or Theresa May. Adding a few side swipes into your post doesn't discount the overall point I was trying to make.

You're making a non-point.

Scotland would start independent life with a (hypothetical ) £15bn deficit. Today that's funded by the UK via the block grant.

TrickyTree83

wotsthat wrote: »

You're making a non-point.

Scotland would start independent life with a (hypothetical ) £15bn deficit. Today that's funded by the UK via the block grant.

This.

In fact it could be worse, it could be better, but it'll be in the ball park probably +/-£2bn.

CLAPTON

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Kabayiri was talking about blame games. Neither NI, Welsh or Scottish governments are 'to blame' in any way for deficits. They get fixed grants.

Nicola is perfect free to reject (i.e. not spend) some of the money so she be 'blame free': and it would be good practice for iscotland
Scotland spends the money that is the cause of deficit by spending more that is collected in taxes

The_Last_Username

wotsthat wrote: »

You're making a non-point.

Scotland would start independent life with a (hypothetical ) £15bn deficit. Today that's funded by the UK via the block grant.

Quite so.
Perhaps Sheikh ............. Shake ........ well anyone could explain how the SNP would fund such spending?
Or give a Scottish budget proposal for post-independence?
Or even what currency would be used (since it will almost certainly not be the Euro)?

Best not hold my breath eh?

A_Medium_Size_Jock

Shakethedisease wrote: »

There is no Scottish deficit that any Scottish Govt has 'run up'. You agree with this then ?



But again it's not a deficit that any Scottish Government has run up or has control over, and therefore isn't to blame for. Is this correct ?

Oh dear.
So you are suggesting that the [STRIKE]SNP[/STRIKE] Scottish Government absolutely have to spend every last penny allocated?
They could not possibly underspend?
They could not possibly save some of the allocation?
In the knowledge that they seek independence and therefore must learn to "balance the books"?
Is this correct?

.string.

Word of caution: I'm no expert BUT:

I think Shakey is largely correct in what she's saying except that she is not talking about the deficit that others are.

As I see it, money from central government gets distributed to the regions according, historically, to a population basis but also on need and extra payments for special cases of which Scotland is one. Let's call that Regional Pocket Money (RPM). Shakey's talking about whether RPM is under or over spent, associating overspending with the word "Deficit". In fact a year or so back Scotland did not spend everything so on that basis had a "Surplus".

However the deficit that the rest are talking about is the difference between what money is raised in Scotland less the RPM plus everything attributed to Scotland but spent by central government. I don't know where the EU funds come into it but that money is part of the story and needs to be added to Scottish "incoming". The result of that calculation is, presumably, the 15 million figure and is the money paid by the UK to balance the books for Scotland each year.

All good value for money of course, even if a certain party is a bit grumpy about getting it.

That 15 million can't be directly taken to mean that an independent Scotland would incur the same financial deficit because it contains things which Scotland may decide not to do, like have armed forces or overseas aid or mending potholes on the one hand and on the other hand things which they would pay for which the rest of the UK do not like haggis racing or midge collecting. So the 15 million will be another figure However it's a good enough figure to ball-park the amount.

I'm sure Shakey knows this perfectly well, but can't resist the temptation to pull legs and, besides, maybe the deflection is a good vote winner. Call me cynical, but then I'm cynical.

The_Last_Username

.string. wrote: »

Word of caution: I'm no expert BUT:

I think Shakey is largely correct in what she's saying except that she is not talking about the deficit that others are.

As I see it, money from central government gets distributed to the regions according, historically, to a population basis but also on need and extra payments for special cases of which Scotland is one. Let's call that Regional Pocket Money (RPM). Shakey's talking about whether RPM is under or over spent, associating overspending with the word "Deficit". In fact a year or so back Scotland did not spend everything so on that basis had a "Surplus".

However the deficit that the rest are talking about is the difference between what money is raised in Scotland less the RPM plus everything attributed to Scotland but spent by central government. I don't know where the EU funds come into it but that money is part of the story and needs to be added to Scottish "incoming". The result of that calculation is, presumably, the 15 million figure and is the money paid by the UK to balance the books for Scotland each year.

All good value for money of course, even if a certain party are a bit grumpy about getting it.

That 15 million can't be directly taken to mean that an independent Scotland would incur the same financial deficit because it contains things which Scotland may decide not to do, like have armed forces or overseas aid or mending potholes on the one hand and on the other hand things which they would pay for which the rest of the UK do not like haggis racing or midge collecting. So the 15 million will be another figure However it's a good enough figure to ball-park the amount.

I'm sure Shakey knows this perfectly well, but can't resist the temptation to pull legs and, besides, maybe the deflection is a good vote winner. Call me cynical, but then I'm cynical.

Ah yes, like giving a child (say) £1 to spend on sweeties and expecting them to save some of that £1.

Nontheless the figure has been frequently referred-to without any practical response.
Such as the above; how would a Scottish Government fund a budget?
Because defecit or not there would have to be some serious and expensive changes.

Shakethedisease

wotsthat wrote: »

You're making a non-point.

Scotland would start independent life with a (hypothetical ) £15bn deficit. Today that's funded by the UK via the block grant.

No, you've just missed the point. Which is the current tendency of a lot of folks here and elsewhere to actively apportion blame to the Scottish Govt for running up a 15 billion pound deficit that it couldn't possibly have done. Right now, while as part of the UK.

The point I was making has nothing to do with independence.

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

Word of caution: I'm no expert BUT:

I think Shakey is largely correct in what she's saying except that she is not talking about the deficit that others are.

As I see it, money from central government gets distributed to the regions according, historically, to a population basis but also on need and extra payments for special cases of which Scotland is one. Let's call that Regional Pocket Money (RPM). Shakey's talking about whether RPM is under or over spent, associating overspending with the word "Deficit". In fact a year or so back Scotland did not spend everything so on that basis had a "Surplus".

However the deficit that the rest are talking about is the difference between what money is raised in Scotland less the RPM plus everything attributed to Scotland but spent by central government. I don't know where the EU funds come into it but that money is part of the story and needs to be added to Scottish "incoming". The result of that calculation is, presumably, the 15 million figure and is the money paid by the UK to balance the books for Scotland each year.

All good value for money of course, even if a certain party is a bit grumpy about getting it.

That 15 million can't be directly taken to mean that an independent Scotland would incur the same financial deficit because it contains things which Scotland may decide not to do, like have armed forces or overseas aid or mending potholes on the one hand and on the other hand things which they would pay for which the rest of the UK do not like haggis racing or midge collecting. So the 15 million will be another figure However it's a good enough figure to ball-park the amount.

I'm sure Shakey knows this perfectly well, but can't resist the temptation to pull legs and, besides, maybe the deflection is a good vote winner. Call me cynical, but then I'm cynical.

I wasn't deflecting, I was just getting weary of the same 'Scottish govt has run up a deficit' nonsense. They can't, and never have been able to do so. End of story.

Shakethedisease

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

Oh dear.
So you are suggesting that the [STRIKE]SNP[/STRIKE] Scottish Government absolutely have to spend every last penny allocated?
They could not possibly underspend?
They could not possibly save some of the allocation?
In the knowledge that they seek independence and therefore must learn to "balance the books"?
Is this correct?

They do underspend. It's gets rolled over into the next years allocation. But by law they have to either balance the books exactly or roll anything left over into next years budget. No deficit.

The other political parties kick up a right fuss when there is an underspend mind you. I thought you lived in Scotland ? You should know this ?