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

TrickyTree83

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Let's not and get back to the here and now. Interesting front page from the National tomorrow titled 'Beyond GERS'. Please note this is research from the Common Weal who are producing several papers on independence.. just before the usual SNP rants start. This is nothing to do with them.

I see the usual suspects like Fraser Whyte and Kevin Hague are also out of the starting blocks already putting the mockers on. Actually doing so before the article was released at midnight lol. However, their weaknesses have always been that both tend to concentrate on GERS itself as it is, offering nothing further simply dissecting and going deeper into them as time has gone on. This research bases it's starting point on the figures GERS produces, but then goes on to suggest potential deficit reduction models in a newly independent Scotland ( rather than Hague and Whyte's 'but ye cannae' approach' ).

A welcome chink of light in the same old, same old deadlock of GERS that's been going on for too many years now on both sides of the debate. Agree with or not, it's a new perspective at the very least. Their White paper next year will be worth looking out for.

http://thenational.scot/news/14912957.Beyond_GERS__How_to_calculate_the_finances_of_independent_Scotland/

https://www.commonspace.scot/articles/9879/report-beyond-gers-scotlands-fiscal-position-post-independence

Dear lord..

I actually started to read this to start picking it apart - obviously.

I thought it might be a challenge since someone clearly took the time to (or at least appeared to) look into it properly.

Within the first 2 minutes I came across this:

Even in the event of Scotland committing to NATO
member defence spending targets of 2% of GDP, the increased
spending within Scotland can be expected to have additional
economic benefits resulting in tax revenue increases of around
£300 million per year compared to the status quo.

Again, related to the "income" from tax by employing more civil servants, as antrobus pointed out is a false economy since you'll need to raise money to pay these people in the first place and the net effect is that you just end up spending slightly less overall, but an increase in spending regardless. Certainly not an increase in income for the government.

If models like this worked how the Dr suggests, Venezuela would be one of the most high functioning South American economies. Quite clearly it is not.

I'll continue reading it, but it's fair to say, it's not a good start.

A_Medium_Size_Jock

I'm going to change the thread's direction:

Here's one very good reason for the SNP to be especially cautious just now, as clearly stated by this man in Stirling on last night's Question Time:

Democracy has been lowered to mob rule. When you don’t like the decision of a referendum, you disagree with it. The SNP should know this, because we had a referendum and we voted ‘no’ and they didn’t like it.
We had a referendum on Brexit, they didn’t like it. Let’s go to court. We didn’t like Brexit.
And now they don’t like Trump.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/bbc-question-time-democracy-mob-rule-stirling_uk_582e4803e4b09025ba31c7e9?utm_hp_ref=uk
Are you watching/reading, Shakey?
No, I'm not suggesting he is in a majority or anything before the usual pro-SNP bunch on here start diversion and distraction.
But this was in Stirling.
A place I know well and one with a huge SNP majority.
Do you hear the extent of the support for this man?

A few of us on here have been saying for quite some time that not as many Scots as you inagine are pro-SNP pro-indy - and if the SNP do decide to force the issue soon, they will suffer a serious backlash and quite possibly even be "outed" as majority in Scotland.
Scots (as I have said before) are cannier than the delusional SNP imagine them to be.

TrickyTree83

However, at the time of writing only 5 of the 28 NATO members
– the USA, the UK, Greece, Poland and Estonia – actually meet
or are close to meeting NATO's 2% target and fully a third of
members are actively decreasing military spending with respect
to GDP6. The sustainability of this target therefore remains to be
seen.

Looks like Trump has put this idea that you can be in NATO and get away with flouting the commitment of 2% of GDP out to pasture.

So if iScotland is going to be in NATO that defence saving has just disappeared up in smoke.

Do you not get the feeling this report is based on flimsy assumptions already? I'm only on the 2nd page after the "key facts".

Shakethedisease

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

I'm going to change the thread's direction:

Here's one very good reason for the SNP to be especially cautious just now, as clearly stated by this man in Stirling on last night's Question Time:

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/bbc-question-time-democracy-mob-rule-stirling_uk_582e4803e4b09025ba31c7e9?utm_hp_ref=uk
Are you watching/reading, Shakey?
No, I'm not suggesting he is in a majority or anything before the usual pro-SNP bunch on here start diversion and distraction.
But this was in Stirling.
A place I know well and one with a huge SNP majority.
Do you hear the extent of the support for this man?

A few of us on here have been saying for quite some time that not as many Scots as you inagine are pro-SNP pro-indy - and if the SNP do decide to force the issue soon, they will suffer a serious backlash and quite possibly even be "outed" as majority in Scotland.
Scots (as I have said before) are cannier than the delusional SNP imagine them to be.

I certainly hope the majority of Scotland is nothing like this man ! I knew as soon as he opened his gub why he was wearing Orange.

TrickyTree83

Pension Liabilities

The current legal position of the UK government regarding
pensions is that all current UK citizens who have fulfilled the
requirements including the paying of national insurance are
entitled to a UK state pension regardless of whether or not they
choose to retire within the UK. Whilst this position is entirely
negotiable between the Scottish and rUK Governments, if it
were to be adopted in full – which would be in line with the UK
claiming possession of all UK assets and liabilities – then this
would be expected to reduce the Scottish deficit by up to £8.5
billion in the first year of independence. Of course, this sum
would gradually re-accumulate onto the Scottish budget as UK
pensions cease paying out over time, at a rate of approximately
5% per year as per UK national life expectancy statistics, and as
new Scottish pensioners start claiming.

Astonishing.

That's not going to happen is it. You'll be offered a share of the pot of money (circa £300m) in accordance with your population share along with all liabilities associated, i.e. current Scottish taxpayers will be paying for Scottish pensions. Does the author truly believe me and my children will continue to fund Scottish pensions when Scotland is not part of the UK? It would be delusion (and arrogance) of the highest order to expect people like myself to be contributing to your pension when your working age citizens would not be contributing to my own at pensionable age.

You can put me down as an activist against negotiating anything other than an absolute split on pension commitments. If you want to leave the UK, you leave the welfare state of the UK.

Shakethedisease

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

Looks like Trump has put this idea that you can be in NATO and get away with flouting the commitment of 2% of GDP out to pasture.

So if iScotland is going to be in NATO that defence saving has just disappeared up in smoke.

Do you not get the feeling this report is based on flimsy assumptions already? I'm only on the 2nd page after the "key facts".

NATO is a contentious issue even within the SNP. Supporting it officially only just squeaked through. Who knows what would happen there in an independent Scotland. And again, the paper only covers the first year of independence. Ireland being an ideal comparison in terms of defence spending.

However, my point still stands. This is a step in the right direction rather than the usual GERS stalemate. Is good to see ideas emerging. There needs to be a lot more of this sort of stuff coming out. Time is getting short.

Wherever May goes, all roads lead to indyref2

Theresa May -->3) Or she can go for a hard Brexit, position herself as the champion of democracy by respecting the result, showing strong leadership, triangulate the Ukip vote and ensure Tory majorities for generations as Labour disintegrates. A true believer in her own political dogma, she will believe that this will allow her to cut through the Brexit jungle with cold Tory neo-capitalist steel and rebuild Britain in her own image. You see she really has no choice at all.

Neither does Nicola Sturgeon. The UK is taking Scotland out of the EU against its will and her manifesto said that would trigger indyref2, but she can’t call it as Brexit hasn’t happened yet and despite the almost mathematical certainty of a hard Brexit, she can’t fight a battle till she knows where it’s going to be, who will be on her side and what weaponry the opposition have...

...So just as Nicola Sturgeon has no choice but to seek a special deal maintaining some form of access to the single market, Theresa May has no choice but to make absolutely sure Scotland doesn’t get that deal.

http://www.thenational.scot/comment/14912870.Gordon_MacIntyre_Kemp__Wherever_May_goes__all_roads_lead_to_indyref2/?ref=mr&lp=2

Full article at link. ---> my addition to say who he's referring to.

TrickyTree83

Other Expenditure Outwith Scotland

Oh dear.

High profile recent examples of such projects include
Trident replacement, HS2, London Crossrail and the
upcoming planned renovation of the UK Houses of Parliament

Now I know for sure I've shown you that the cost of HS2 to Scotland is smaller than the money you get back as a result of Barnett!

Yet the author makes no mention of this, but finds the temerity to propose that increased spending on defence and civil servants creates a net income into the Scottish treasury!

Credibility in this paper is rapidly evaporating as I read on, this is page 4.

.string.

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

Dear lord..

I actually started to read this to start picking it apart - obviously.

I thought it might be a challenge since someone clearly took the time to (or at least appeared to) look into it properly.

Within the first 2 minutes I came across this:



Again, related to the "income" from tax by employing more civil servants, as antrobus pointed out is a false economy since you'll need to raise money to pay these people in the first place and the net effect is that you just end up spending slightly less overall, but an increase in spending regardless. Certainly not an increase in income for the government.

If models like this worked how the Dr suggests, Venezuela would be one of the most high functioning South American economies. Quite clearly it is not.

I'll continue reading it, but it's fair to say, it's not a good start.

I confess not having read it yet, but just glancing at it. I did notice that defence is way down and not consistent with NATO membership, so presumably it is a "behind the sofa" defence policy, that a profit is made from providing pensions and that there is no allowance for paying down the national debt, just "interest", as before. Didn't find the source of revenue - maybe another look will reveal it.

Embassies will apparently cost 10% of the (low) UK costs in spite of the fact that they would have to be bought/rented. A sort of borrowing strategy is assumed. Borrowing costs.

In a way it is good that the document is out there. If it stands up to criticism that is something the Scots should know, if it does not that is also something the Scots should know. However, as mentioned before a PhD in Laser Physics (I've not seen any economic experience but maybe missed the Nobel prize in economics) is hardly the right background for this sort of analysis.

Still his document should be given the level of credibility that an activist deserves - must read carefully.

TrickyTree83

Shakethedisease wrote: »

NATO is a contentious issue even within the SNP. Supporting it officially only just squeaked through. Who knows what would happen there in an independent Scotland. And again, the paper only covers the first year of independence. Ireland being an ideal comparison in terms of defence spending.

However, my point still stands. This is a step in the right direction rather than the usual GERS stalemate. Is good to see ideas emerging. There needs to be a lot more of this sort of stuff coming out. Time is getting short.

http://www.thenational.scot/comment/14912870.Gordon_MacIntyre_Kemp__Wherever_May_goes__all_roads_lead_to_indyref2/?ref=mr&lp=2

Full article at link. ---> my addition to say who he's referring to.

I'll interject my own running commentary on this work of fiction to say that not all roads lead to indy2 do they. In Nicola's own words, a Norway model would stop that in its tracks.

Why then do you support those who twist situations into non-realities. Like this article on all roads leading to indy2, or this paper on a post-GERS Scotland?

Given your recent lack of capitulation to logic in relation to the anglophobia presence in the SNP, the scrambling around for headlines and soundbites from like minded delusionals just comes off as desperate to keep a narrative alive. As evident in your own words:

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Time is getting short.

Do you too sense the tide turning against independence?

When watching QT and listening to the split in the audience it would appear the stronghold of Stirling isn't quite so biased towards the SNP as you would have us believe. And on that topic, the pro-independence activist who presumed she could lecture the audience on the pro's and con's of Brexit showed her true colours when it emerged she didn't even vote. Some real sound conviction there.

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

I confess not having read it yet, but just glancing at it. I did notice that defence is way down and not consistent with NATO membership, so presumably it is a "behind the sofa" defence policy, that a profit is made from providing pensions and that there is no allowance for paying down the national debt, just "interest", as before. Didn't find the source of revenue - maybe another look will reveal it.

Embassies will apparently cost 10% of the (low) UK costs in spite of the fact that they would have to be bought/rented. A sort of borrowing strategy is assumed. Borrowing costs.

In a way it is good that the document is out there. If it stands up to criticism that is something the Scots should know, if it does not that is also something the Scots should know. However, as mentioned before a PhD in Laser Physics (I've not seen any economic experience but maybe missed the Nobel prize in economics) is hardly the right background for this sort of analysis.

Still his document should be given the level of credibility that an activist deserves - must read carefully.

I hope you know that Kevin Hague isn't an economist either ? But yes, go ahead an critique, that's what it's there for. Certainly those in the pro indy camp are doing the same.;)

Professor Mike Danson of Heriot Watt University called the work “sound and methodical”, adding that it is “far superior to the pre-programmed responses of opposition parties and commentators who cannot read beyond the headline or seek to question assumptions that would not apply to an independent Scotland”.

He went on: “By adopting best practice, a non-partisan picture of a much healthier Scottish budget is revealed.
“The evidence-based conclusions are of a Scottish budget in a position of parity with the UK’s on independence day, with no inferior and damning deficit to address. This would offer the opportunity to develop and grow the economy and society from a position of relative strength, rather than facing the burden of crippling deficits and debts.

“With the complementary powers and freedoms regained through independence, this flexibility and potential to move towards more fundamental restructuring of the tax, expenditure and debt systems would support changes in the economy and income distribution which would improve the budget position further.”

http://www.thenational.scot/news/14912958.We_can_work_it_out__Why_Unionist_financial_sums_don_t_add_up_any_more/

All depends on the theoretical negotiations doesn't it really. But much more of this sort of thing will definitely blunt the impact of any Obsorne-esque repeat of Brexit warnings that would happen immediately after the vote. Which in effect is what Hague, Whyte and Lovatt do all the time. A good start.