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

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

Unfortunately I do not have a subscription to the Times, so cannot check the whole article, but from the little I can see they are not writing about whether or not the Scottish Government is spending more than the grant, but the use they are making of it and their failure to improve the Scottish economy. See the link below for the limited part of the article to read what it says. No wonder you didn't show it all.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/face-facts-sturgeon-is-failing-to-act-on-deficit-0lxskmhzw

So I call you out on what you wrote there, Shakey, you appear to be misrepresenting what the Times article is about which is the SNP Government failing to do their day job. A bunch of fanatics it seems.

Fixed budget, balance the books or underspend. Those are the options available to Holyrood whoever is in charge. Westminster is ultimately in charge of Scotland's economy. Scotland does not have fiscal autonomy. Sturgeon therefore cannot act on the deficit and are facing cuts to budgets just like every other area if the UK is on public services. They are doing fine in the day job otherwise they'd have been replaced by another party just a few months ago by Scottish voters.

The Times article therefore is bunkum.

Shakethedisease

antrobus wrote: »

No.

GERS tells you that an independent Scotland is not fiscally sustainable without significant tax increases and/or spending cuts.

You need to wake up and face the facts. (And stop waffling.:)) It's not an argument against independence. It tells you that there is a price to pay for independence. And it won't be cheap.

I agreed with you about independence not coming cheap. I don't agree with you about GERS not being vague and not broken down properly. I like waffling.

You never answered the question I asked you. rUK GDP and Balance of payments if Scotland leaves. Markets ? Would you care to give us all your opinion on this too. I've asked nicely and in a polite waffly way twice now and I'd be very interested in your thoughts.

.string.

sss555s wrote: »

... I'm sure your thinking that Brexit is naive also but that is happening I'm afraid. Scotland wouldn't have looked at the possibility of another referendum at this time if that hadn't have happened.

...

The word "naive" was related to the selling of EU Membership as an improved status for Scotland compared with being in the UK.

Are you really so filled with auto-reflex slogan-speak that you can't grasp the point I was ... making? I'll rephrase it for you.

If Scotland joins the EU it will have a hugely diminished influence on its own affairs, both because it will gradually be adsorbed by the huge population of the EU as a result the inexorable march of "ever closer Union", and secondly because it has only about 1% of the total population with influence to match.

You may wish to subject Scots to that hugely diminished future, I wouldn't.

A_Medium_Size_Jock

.string. wrote: »

So I call you out on what you wrote there, Shakey, you appear to be misrepresenting what the Times article is about which is the SNP Government failing to do their day job. A bunch of fanatics it seems.

What a surprise!
Misrepresentation by Shakey?
On THIS thread?

And the response is (as usual) sticking to the line taken by WOS and to call The Times article "bunkum".
"It's not the SNP's fault" is the cry, basically.
Laughable.

TrickyTree83

sss555s wrote: »

Recent history is proof enough. Can you prove that Westminster will change tact and North England, Wales, NI and Scotland won't bear the brunt?




:rotfl: Are you seriously on here every day preaching to Scots to vote against independence while saying you think the block grant is unfair and should be cut?

You keep saying recent history is proof enough, show me/us. Explain it.

Evidence, evidence, evidence, or it never happened.

Where did I say it was unfair? Where did I say it should be cut?

I think you're imagining words there.

.string.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Fixed budget, balance the books or underspend. Those are the options available to Holyrood whoever is in charge. Westminster is ultimately in charge of Scotland's economy. Scotland does not have fiscal autonomy. Sturgeon therefore cannot act on the deficit and are facing cuts to budgets just like every other area if the UK is on public services. They are doing fine in the day job otherwise they'd have been replaced by another party just a few months ago by Scottish voters.

The Times article therefore is bunkum.

Well I take it you have read the complete article -- I haven't so can't assess it's bunkum rating , but I can assess your post and it just reads as a feeble, invalid, excuse for incompetence by the SNP Government although I have to admit, it may not be exactly incompetence but the willingness to let the economy of Scotland be damaged in order to give vent to yet another manufactured whinge about it all being Westminster's fault.

Nice little foreign boondoggles Sturgeon has had recently to improve trade. Or was ot just political to cosy up to Germa y? Has she done many successful trade "visits" before which have boosted the economy? Has she done anything?

TrickyTree83

Shakethedisease wrote: »

It wasn't a Wings article mcskinflint. It was a comment on a thread on Reddit a few days ago.

I would've thought that the fact Scotland wouldn't be contributing to the NIP at all would be a saving in itself. Remembering of course that 40% of Scotland's spending is decided on Scotland's behalf. The author of the whytepaper blog is as biased as Wings is in the other direction. But as I said earlier, back and forth on GERS here is soul destroying. The very fact that there's so much doubt and differing interpretations of it speaks volumes. And again, that's not to deny an iScotland wouldn't face serious challenges.

Differing interpretations is the clearest indication that interpretations shouldn't be used and that the figures should be taken 'as seen'.

They are signed off by the Scottish government, they are produced by statisticians and they are the only source that comes close to describing what is happening in the Scottish economy from an official source.

So after having established that it's the best available, from an official source, if we take the figures 'as seen', what do they show in terms of Scottish spending vs revenue? Would Scotland be in the red, or in the black?

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

Well I take it you have read the complete article -- I haven't so can't assess it's bunkum rating , but I can assess your post and it just reads as a feeble, invalid, excuse for incompetence by the SNP Government although I have to admit, it may not be exactly incompetence but the willingness to let the economy of Scotland be damaged in order to give vent to yet another manufactured whinge about it all being Westminster's fault.

Nice little foreign boondoggles Sturgeon has had recently to improve trade. Or was ot just political to cosy up to Germa y? Has she done many successful trade "visits" before which have boosted the economy? Has she done anything?

For the benefit once again of those who seem to have somehow interpreted 'deficit' for 'getting on the with day job'. The headline alone is spoonfeeding people untruths. It does not say 'Face Facts.. Sturgeon should get on with the day job'.

sss555s

.string. wrote: »

Are you really so filled with auto-reflex slogan-speak that you can't grasp the point I was ... making? I'll rephrase it for you.

If Scotland joins the EU it will have a hugely diminished influence on its own affairs, both because it will gradually be adsorbed by the huge population of the EU as a result the inexorable march of "ever closer Union", and secondly because it has only about 1% of the total population with influence to match.

Your version of Scotland's future in the EU is not something I was looking to entertain. We are in the EU just now (represented through Westminster) and I don't feel we have any direct control over what happens. What you say above is a non-point in my view.

.string. wrote: »

You may wish to subject Scots to that hugely diminished future, I wouldn't.

You say that as if there won't be consequences by remaining in the UK. These points validate another referendum.

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

You keep saying recent history is proof enough, show me/us. Explain it.

Evidence, evidence, evidence, or it never happened.

Where did I say it was unfair? Where did I say it should be cut?

I think you're imagining words there.

The trouble is TT83 that I have a vote and you don't. You are obviously on here to try and convince/ justify to yourself that remain is the right choice.

So I will ask you again as someone who hasn't ticked the box yet...

Can you prove that Westminster will change tact and North England, Wales, NI and Scotland won't bear the brunt?

Shakethedisease

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

Differing interpretations is the clearest indication that interpretations shouldn't be used and that the figures should be taken 'as seen'.

They are signed off by the Scottish government, they are produced by statisticians and they are the only source that comes close to describing what is happening in the Scottish economy from an official source.

So after having established that it's the best available, from an official source, if we take the figures 'as seen', what do they show in terms of Scottish spending vs revenue? Would Scotland be in the red, or in the black?

In the red, along with just about every other area in the UK. Outside the UK, in the red, but at least with opportunities and powers to address it. And possibly by not so much as those with vested interests in keeping Scotland in the UK have presented thus far. There is also 'history' on this which most Scots are well aware of.

When I said different interpretations I meant from GERS itself citing that differing methodologies produce different results as it's impossible to pin down and allocate a lot of figures for Scotland only. Also 1) Some interpret GERS as a sign of how badly Scotland would do upon day 1 independence 2) Others interpret it as a sign of just how badly Scotland fares within the Union.

Only No 2 above is fact at the moment, and like it or not GERS isn't fully trusted in terms of accuracy either.

But that's it. I'm not getting drawn into GERS again. Done to death, you're either in camp 1 or camp 2 and never the twain shall meet I'm afraid.