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

Conrad

An SNP lead Scotland will deliver ever higher levels of dependency and failure thanks to the overt virtue signalling nature of SNP Politicians.


Tasmina Ahmed Sheik (sp) talking in the petitioned debate calling for the Trump State visit to be over-turned was the most sickly example of virtue grandstanding I've ever seen. "ooohhh what will I tell my Daughters", jeeeeze, tell em the world is not made up of safe space bubbles and sometimes pragmatism trumps the cotton wool echo chamber and that rolling out the red carpet will allow us to have the ear of Trump and some influence in a way not possible through normal diplomacy. I care a lot more that British workers will benefit than I do that Tasmina will have to have a 'difficult' conversation with her Daughters.

kabayiri

Conrad wrote: »

...

Tasmina Ahmed Sheik (sp) talking in the petitioned debate calling for the Trump State visit to be over-turned was the most sickly example of virtue grandstanding I've ever seen. "ooohhh what will I tell my Daughters", jeeeeze, tell em the world is not made up of safe space bubbles and sometimes pragmatism trumps the cotton wool echo chamber and that rolling out the red carpet will allow us to have the ear of Trump and some influence in a way not possible through normal diplomacy. I care a lot more that British workers will benefit than I do that Tasmina will have to have a 'difficult' conversation with her Daughters.

We're not allowed to reference Tasmina (any party will do); even Shakey doesn't think much of her.

It's like comparing a party to a deck of cards. There's always a couple of jokers in the pack. The presence of Tasmina leaves one spare then...

antrobus

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

Kudos for battling on antro....

Not so much 'battling' as simply pointing that the figures quoted are, ahem, 'questionable'.

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

...Some will tell you they can have a sovereign oil fund comparable to Norway's. Mathematics shows that to be an impossibility but it doesn't stop them from telling all their friends to try to persuade them to vote 'Yes'.

An independent Scotland could indeed have a "sovereign oil fund" if it wanted one. But you can only spend the money once. If the revenues are pumped into a sovereign fund, they aren't available to fund the fiscal deficit.

The reason that Norway has its Government Pension Funds (Global and Norway) is that (a) Norway has twice as much oil as the UK with about one-twelfth of the population, and (b) has therefore run a fiscal surplus for at least the past twenty years. (In the good years, as much as 15% of GDP or more.)

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/norway/government-budget

If you have a continuing fiscal surplus, it makes sense to invest that surplus. If you have a continuing fiscal deficit, it makes sense to reduce the deficit.

TrickyTree83

antrobus wrote: »

Not so much 'battling' as simply pointing that the figures quoted are, ahem, 'questionable'.



An independent Scotland could indeed have a "sovereign oil fund" if it wanted one. But you can only spend the money once. If the revenues are pumped into a sovereign fund, they aren't available to fund the fiscal deficit.

The reason that Norway has its Government Pension Funds (Global and Norway) is that (a) Norway has twice as much oil as the UK with about one-twelfth of the population, and (b) has therefore run a fiscal surplus for at least the past twenty years. (In the good years, as much as 15% of GDP or more.)

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/norway/government-budget

If you have a continuing fiscal surplus, it makes sense to invest that surplus. If you have a continuing fiscal deficit, it makes sense to reduce the deficit.

Absolutely, that's why I used the word comparable. There's plenty of research out about why setting up an oil fund in iScotland wouldn't come close to addressing the issues they face. The amount of money they can accrue, the time it takes to accrue it all point to absolute futility.

While the economic rationale for an oil fund is clear for a country of Scotland’s size, establishing
such a fund would affect the fiscal choices available to an independent Scottish state.
Implementing an oil fund in a similar way to Norway would imply very significant tax increases
or cuts to public spending, over and above the plans that have been set by the UK Government
to!repair the impact of the financial crisis. Based on forecasts of Scotland’s fiscal position in
2016-17 by the Centre for Public Policy for Regions, for an independent Scotland to start an oil
fund in 2016-17 from a balanced budget, additional fiscal consolidation of 5.1 per cent of GDP,16
or £8.4!billion in real terms, would be needed. That implies nominal spending cuts of 13 per cent
from current levels, or onshore tax rises of 18 per cent. Additional fiscal consolidation would
then be required to begin making contributions to the fund.17
Even if an independent Scotland were able radically to adjust fiscal policy and implement an oil
fund, this would not smooth all volatility in Scotland’s public finances. It may take considerable
time to build up a fund of adequate size to manage volatility in the public finances. Assuming an
independent Scotland started a Norwegian-style oil fund in 2021-22, Scotland’s oil fund after 20
years of contributions would reach less than a tenth of the current size of the Norwegian fund
(after 17 years of contributions).18 As part of the UK, Scotland achieves many of the benefits of
an oil fund: the UK’s integrated fiscal model provides a very stable flow of Scottish expenditure,
without the need for Scotland to run the onshore fiscal position required for an oil fund.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/236579/scotland_analysis_macroeconomic_and_fiscal_performance.pdf

I've linked to it before, but I doubt anyone reads these things.

It's easier just to ignore it and carry on telling your friends and family that an oil fund will pay for the NHS, education, welfare, etc... they'll never have had it so good.

The lies are so perverse and unremitting that the only way to fight it would be to broadcast and publicise the truth properly. I don't see any concerted effort to do that at this time.

kabayiri

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

Absolutely, that's why I used the word comparable. There's plenty of research out about why setting up an oil fund in iScotland wouldn't come close to addressing the issues they face. The amount of money they can accrue, the time it takes to accrue it all point to absolute futility.
...

I believe the SNP got the idea for the Oil Wealth fund by watching those Christmas Hamper club ads on telly.

You know the style : "Struggling to pay for this Christmas? Why not put money away every week in the club for next Christmas!"

(conveniently ignoring how you cover the debts from this Christmas).

Shakethedisease

kabayiri wrote: »

I believe the SNP got the idea for the Oil Wealth fund by watching those Christmas Hamper club ads on telly.

You know the style : "Struggling to pay for this Christmas? Why not put money away every week in the club for next Christmas!"

(conveniently ignoring how you cover the debts from this Christmas).

Think it's more along the lines of sitting by helplessly while your partner racks up the credit card bills year after year, since the cards are in their name ? Maybe well past time Scotland takes full responsibility for itself for good or bad.. instead of sitting cringing, head in hands ' no, no don't buy THAT, we could spend it on house buildi.. too late' ( Trident for example ) watching someone else do it.

Theresa's getting worried anyway, and rightly so. Sturgeon means it and always did about a second referendum. Mrs May's been listening and reading too many fawning Scottish tories and Scottish unionist journo articles who all thought Sturgeon has been bluffing since June. Nope. And they're all getting more than a little bit antsy now given the choice is either to refuse one outright ( boost independence support) or let one happen ( May has to deal with EU negotiations and a Scottish ref at the same time).

THERESA May has ordered her cabinet to “strengthen and sustain the Union” amid growing signs that Nicola Sturgeon intends to call a second independence referendum. The Prime Minister held a lengthy cabinet discussion in Downing Street on the Union which “touched on” the possibility of another vote, her spokesman confirmed.
The Union and Russia were the main items on Tuesday’s agenda.

Individual cabinet secretaries then talked about their departments’ work and the “importance of maintaining a level of engagement to strengthen and enhance the union going forward”.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/15107835.May_orders_cabinet_to__quot_strengthen_and_sustain_the_Union_quot_/

Shaka_Zulu

Shakethedisease wrote: »

.....who all thought Sturgeon has been bluffing since June.

I very much think nobody thought she was bluffing unfortunately. There is a lot more fight in the cornered rat but the result will be the same.

Shakethedisease

Shaka_Zulu wrote: »

I very much think nobody thought she was bluffing unfortunately. There is a lot more fight in the cornered rat but the result will be the same.

Scottish journos certainly thought she was. Only now ( rather belatedly and getting more and more shrill about it ) starting to talk about when rather than if. Torrance, Sinclair, Farquarson, Dale, Massie etc have all now woken up and joined reality with the rest of us in Scotland in seeing the way things would play out, rather than the bluffing/holding out for more powers/federalism/never happen fantasy land they've been living in since June.

The result ? Alas, neither you or I can predict if you're being honest. Although you are of course welcome to keep comforting yourself with the thought of another No vote.

Thrugelmir

baldelectrician wrote: »

They could have transferred their skills to the offshore wind and wave industry- oh wait they can't as Westmonster cut the subsidies after the 2014 vote.

You'll find that Europe has followed behind. With the fall in energy prices globally. Little point in subsidising a more expensive option.

mollycat

Shakethedisease wrote: »

refuse one outright ( boost independence support)

Another example of the tactic of saying something often enough and hoping it's accepted as fact.

Unfortunately the majority of NO/Don't Know voters in Scotland do not share the "offence at the drop of a hat" mindset of the YES brigade.

Everyone I know is hoping May refuses a further referendum, (as she said she would), ASAP.

Hopefully she will realise this is the biggest single thing she could do to boost her popularity up here.

Nothing the Nats will be able to do after that; except manufacture more anger, offence and bile

The rest of us can get on with respecting democracy