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

Shakethedisease

wotsthat wrote: »

If semantics were money you'd be able to make quite a dent into an independent Scotland's deficit.

Why thank you ! But if just one person reading this thread the next time they hear the phrase 'the SNP are so bad they've run up a 15bn pound deficit' thinks 'oh wait that's not true, they get a fixed grant and aren't fiscally autonomous'.. then my job here is done on that particular issue. :cool:

TrickyTree83

Shakethedisease wrote: »

As per sss555s post. It's because the oft quoted Scotland v's the rest of the UK isn't a fair comparison. A few SE regions but mostly London up the average so much that it skews the data massively. Especially when transposed to a Scotland/rUK basis, rather than a region by region basis.

That map is from the ONS.

Yeah I'm aware of where the map came from, I posted the original link.

But the point I'm making is this, that Scotland does well out of the UK. The evidence is all around you and you're being sold a pup based on anti-conservative nationalist rhetoric with little basis in reality. There is a vast difference between 64% and 11%, even with large percentage swings the difference remains large.

Rather than ask how Scotland came to be rated so well in terms of GVA you prefer to use it as a tool for your agenda. How is that in any way sensible?

Back in 1976, was Scotland in a strong place in GVA terms? If you know the answer you'll know what the UK government, no one else, did to address that. Not only then but even as Scottish living standards increased faster than those of poorer English regions, what was done in 1976 continues to be honoured to this day. Who committed to that? Which political party was that? Which political party gave the Scottish government the nod for 2014?

For something you hate, they've been pretty good to you. And yet right now I'm reading news that Scottish police cars are held together with duct tape. That hospital bed numbers have shrunk, that educational standards are down and the SNP care more about independence and their intrusive policies more than the day to day running of Scotland and the plight of the people within it. And yet they can do no wrong according to some.

You tarnish leave voters claiming they are pursuing a dangerous course whilst at the same time being someone who has pursued the same course in respect of the EU since probably 2012, and with the UK possibly for longer. Just this time the EU is a convenient tool, a means to an end. It's not something you want. The facts are glaring for Scotland and it's relationship with the EU. Where were all the Scottish independence supporters when the EU was stripping almost 50% of fishing jobs in Scotland? Making Peterhead main street a parade of chipboard. Balls to the citizens of Peterhead, you want independence above all else?

TrickyTree83

Shakethedisease wrote: »

As per sss555s post. It's because the oft quoted Scotland v's the rest of the UK isn't a fair comparison. A few SE regions but mostly London up the average so much that it skews the data massively. Especially when transposed to a Scotland/rUK basis, rather than a region by region basis.

That map is from the ONS.

3 regions of England contribute more in share and more per head. Those regions that are most populous have their average brought down. But that would only be clear if the document was read.

These are probably the people you hate.

It only serves to prove Scotland does well in the union.

Shakethedisease

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

3 regions of England contribute more in share and more per head. Those regions that are most populous have their average brought down. But that would only be clear if the document was read.

These are probably the people you hate.

It only serves to prove Scotland does well in the union.

On your last two posts saying Scotland does well in the union.. I can only point you to GERS. Because you say the figures there mean Scotland is an economic basket case mired in a terrible 15 billion pound deficit should it go independent. That by any measure is certainly not doing well out of the union !

Crimes rates are the lowest for decades and the Scottish NHS is outperforming all other rUK NHS's in terms of patient satisfaction and A+E waiting times etc. If there was any 'plight' of Scottish people due to the SNP and the way they run services in Scotland. Believe me they'd be voted out quick smart. Not perfect of course, but overall doing a good job.

The EU isn't a convenient tool. It's how the Scottish people voted. Even then the SNP are pushing for a soft Brexit for the UK overall even if it damages their own referendum hopes. Because they recognise that a hard Brexit is going to be very bad for everyone in the UK regardless. And will only serve to make independence even tougher should it happen. Far better that both Scotland and everywhere else in the UK aren't dealing with huge economic shocks at the same time as an indy ref. We all recognise that, but longer term the Scots voted to stay where they are as far as the EU is concerned, and that must be respected by Holyrood too. So it will be an indy ref it's a hard Brexit. Because we all need clarity on where Scotland places it's economic and political priorities UK or the EU.

skintmacflint

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Why thank you ! But if just one person reading this thread the next time they hear the phrase 'the SNP are so bad they've run up a 15bn pound deficit' thinks 'oh wait that's not true, they get a fixed grant and aren't fiscally autonomous'.. then my job here is done on that particular issue. :cool:

Except for the single passing reader the fact that Scotland is handed a fixed grant is irrelevant. An independent Scotland would still have a huge deficit. Of around 15 billion now. Because we spend more than we earn. Fact.

Unless

1. We increase taxes or cut public spending on a huge and painful scale.
2. Grow our economy using Sturgeon's 'magic levere' in one year which with huge luck and effort would normally take around 30 years.
3. Borrow a huge amount at increased rates as a new country. Squalling to somewhere around 7 to 15 billion each year depending on whether as someone has already said , we 1 or 2 fishing boats and helicopters for our nation's defence, no foreign embassies or security worldwide etc. You get the picture.

Joining the EU as a new country( as we're definitely leaving with the U.K.) if Merkel scrapes back in I'd suggest it would be option 1 we'd be looking at. Germany isn't going to be willing to subsidis all the little perks we enjoy , that the UK are willing to cover the cost of.

Also remember it was Sturgeon who campaigned during the GE2015 against the Conservative deficit reduction plans. she wanted to add another 150 billion or so more to the UK deficit over 5 years, so Scotland would get an extra 14 billion as part of its fixed budget.

Not that it would have helped with SNP in charge. The only thing SNP excel at is spin, and misinformation.

antrobus

Shakethedisease wrote: »

On your last two posts saying Scotland does well in the union.. I can only point you to GERS. Because you say the figures there mean Scotland is an economic basket case mired in a terrible 15 billion pound deficit should it go independent. That by any measure is certainly not doing well out of the union ! ....

That £15bn deficit is now financed by the UK.

If Scotland was independent, Scotland would have to finance that £15 bn deficit all by itself. Since that amounts to over 9% of GDP it is not sustainable, particularly when you appreciate the EU's target of a 3% deficit.

An independent Scotland would need to implement cuts and tax increases to reduce its deficit. That's what GERS tells you.

Independence comes at a price. And it won't be cheap.

wotsthat

Shakethedisease wrote: »

On your last two posts saying Scotland does well in the union.. I can only point you to GERS. Because you say the figures there mean Scotland is an economic basket case mired in a terrible 15 billion pound deficit should it go independent. That by any measure is certainly not doing well out of the union !

Enjoying a standard of living that otherwise couldn't be afforded sounds like a positive of being in the union.

I understand the hurry up. Scottish people must, by now, be making a connection between outcomes and the government they vote in.

Brexit was a gift for the SNP because it gave them a (faux) reason to highlight the, oh so big, differences between the peoples of Scotland vs the UK. If it wasn't that they'd be stuck with moaning about the annual chat about changing to double summer time etc.

Given the SNP are great, the Union is leading to poor outcomes, the decisions of 'Westminster' are made too far away and Scots have an opinion of the EU which is different at a genetic level what are the polls showing?

Must be 70% or so saying they'd vote to leave by now?

skintmacflint

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Crimes rates are the lowest for decades and the Scottish NHS is outperforming all other rUK NHS's in terms of patient satisfaction and A+E waiting times etc. If there was any 'plight' of Scottish people due to the SNP and the way they run services in Scotland. Believe me they'd be voted out quick smart. Not perfect of course, but overall doing a good job.

The EU isn't a convenient tool. It's how the Scottish people voted. Even then the SNP are pushing for a soft Brexit for the UK overall even if it damages their own referendum hopes. Because they recognise that a hard Brexit is going to be very bad for everyone in the UK regardless. And will only serve to make independence even tougher should it happen. Far better that both Scotland and everywhere else in the UK aren't dealing with huge economic shocks at the same time as an indy ref. We all recognise that, but longer term the Scots voted to stay where they are as far as the EU is concerned, and that must be respected by Holyrood too. So it will be an indy ref it's a hard Brexit. Because we all need clarity on where Scotland places it's economic and political priorities UK or the EU.

Crime rates are down all over the UK. As for patient satisfaction rates most people just sayeverything was fine so as not to reflect on staff, it's not always what they think. 6 monthly outpatient reappointments are now 9 monthly or annually in order to meet the new patient appointment lead time figures which are measured.

I hear the New Pricess Elizalbeth may be taking on extra workload, from more hospitals, yet it doesn't even have the bed capacity for the 3 hospitals it initially replaced. Our hospital, schools and councils are being centralised to save money, against our wishes. There has been a slew of bad press on our hospitals funding and state of our kids education standards . After 9 years of SNP great governance. But never mind A&E figures are better.

As for Sturgeon having to listen to Scotland's vote in the EU, she didn't listen to over 2 million voters then. SNP supporters can spin themselves into thinking the EU ref was a Scottish vote if they want but the rest of Scotland isn't falling for it.

Sturgeon couldn't care less about what happens to the UK, nor I believe Scotland. Sturgeon would simply prefer a soft Brexit for the UK to suit SNP. At present about 1/3 rd to 1/2 of her Indy supporters don't want to be part of the EU, so their vote for a 2nd Ref can't be guaranteed. But they probably would if it was a good soft Brexit deal.

CLAPTON

Shakethedisease wrote: »

The markets though.. what would happen there ? The below article was from 2014, but Jim Rogers was on the radio the other day saying exactly the same.

http://fortune.com/2014/09/17/scotland-uk-independence/

If Scotland's in for a rough time going independent, I think there are some considerations to be made over what effect that would have elsewhere in the UK economically. Especially with a Brexit already hammering the £. In short the UK, all of it, would be best going for a softer version of Brexit than the one the Tories are currently touting.

with all this concern for the value of the pound, its a shame that after 30 years of thinking, Nicola refuses to tell the people of scotland what currency they would use after iscotland. Whilst its probably politically sensible to continue to mislead the scots it does seem unethical to me.

TrickyTree83

Shakethedisease wrote: »

On your last two posts saying Scotland does well in the union.. I can only point you to GERS. Because you say the figures there mean Scotland is an economic basket case mired in a terrible 15 billion pound deficit should it go independent. That by any measure is certainly not doing well out of the union !

Crimes rates are the lowest for decades and the Scottish NHS is outperforming all other rUK NHS's in terms of patient satisfaction and A+E waiting times etc. If there was any 'plight' of Scottish people due to the SNP and the way they run services in Scotland. Believe me they'd be voted out quick smart. Not perfect of course, but overall doing a good job.

The EU isn't a convenient tool. It's how the Scottish people voted. Even then the SNP are pushing for a soft Brexit for the UK overall even if it damages their own referendum hopes. Because they recognise that a hard Brexit is going to be very bad for everyone in the UK regardless. And will only serve to make independence even tougher should it happen. Far better that both Scotland and everywhere else in the UK aren't dealing with huge economic shocks at the same time as an indy ref. We all recognise that, but longer term the Scots voted to stay where they are as far as the EU is concerned, and that must be respected by Holyrood too. So it will be an indy ref it's a hard Brexit. Because we all need clarity on where Scotland places it's economic and political priorities UK or the EU.

Looking at GVA, Scotland has done well within the union. Likely dragged up by 40 years of Barnett funding.

But because you want to paint it in a pro independence light, you're going to use GERS?

Lets press pause a second and work out if you want to use GERS or not, whether or not you find it a trustworthy source of information or not? (Previously you've said it's not!)

To me it looks like Barnett funding has been a success for Scotland, it's allowed you to spend more and put money where you require it in order to improve living standards and productivity, raising the GVA for Scotland to one of the highest in the UK.

At the same time Barnett has meant that because of funding decisions taken in England, therefore increasing funding to Scotland, that Scotland has been spending more than it generates in revenue. So when GERS is compiled it shows the net balance in Scottish spending and indicates that their contribution to the UK deficit is ~£15bn (that's adding £15bn a year to the overall debt) which is (someone correct this if I'm wrong) around 9% of Scottish GDP?

Scotland is only able to do this and continue to do it without having to address it because Scotland is in the UK. If Scotland leaves the UK this would be one of the first issues that would need to be dealt with.

So if you've enjoyed 40 years of growth, enhanced funding, raised living standards, increased devolved powers you now want to leave the union that brought you this and join another union that will mean that Scotland is most likely a net contributor, only applies to a whopping 11% of Scottish trade and will still run your laws from a city even further away than London.

Apart from feeling it, can you tell me what benefits and drawbacks Scottish independence within the EU will have over devolved government under the UK outside the EU?