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

sss555s

kabayiri wrote: »

Why do you ignore the rest of the UK? .... Manchester; Leeds; Cardiff; Belfast. Exeter; Hull; Newcastle ...etc etc

Mainly because the topic of this thread is about Scottish independence.

I have mentioned about the other areas having the same issues and that we would be better being more like Germany, in the past.

That's just not going to happen and the gap is still widening IMO.

kabayiri wrote: »

Pretty much

We never suggested that the proceeds of 'King Cotton' in the past should benefit only the North West.

We didn't restrict the income from coal to spending in Wales and Yorkshire either.

These are UK resources.

If fracking on the Fylde coast delivers big returns the money will end up in UK coffers too.

It's daft to suggest that oil is no different as a shared resource.

My post was in reply to Scotland being criticised for taking Westminster money. I was only pointing out that we have probably paid our share over the years and I think we could manage it better than Westminster has done.

antrobus

kabayiri wrote: »

Pretty much

We never suggested that the proceeds of 'King Cotton' in the past should benefit only the North West.

We didn't restrict the income from coal to spending in Wales and Yorkshire either.

These are UK resources.

If fracking on the Fylde coast delivers big returns the money will end up in UK coffers too.

It's daft to suggest that oil is no different as a shared resource.

Scotland has been subsidised by those South of the Wall ever since (at least) the Goschen formula of 1888. God knows how many billions that adds up to. Crumbs, if the UK asked for all that back it would probably clear the national debt.:)

sss555s

antrobus wrote: »

You posted a load of old BS. I point out that Scotland runs a fiscal deficit of almost 10% of GDP, and you say that I'm "quoting general figures that don't take a lot of things into account". That's just pure 100% waffle. A meaningless string of words designed simply to avoid the issue.

Time to wake up and smell the coffee.:)

Same old figures argument. There is so much corrupt accounting that those figures mean little though we know there is work to do.

It will be a nice challenge.

I know what blend I'll be ticking when it's time to vote.

sss555s

cogito wrote: »

And how much have the Scots taken from the rest of the UK since the Barnett formula was introduced in the 1960s? About £330bn at a guess.

You're probably right. Our cherry on top has probably paid all our block grand since the 60's.

kabayiri

sss555s wrote: »

...
My post was in reply to Scotland being criticised for taking Westminster money. I was only pointing out that we have probably paid our share over the years and I think we could manage it better than Westminster has done.

Seriously...if you want a more prudent approach to the management of the Scottish economy, get the Norwegian government to run it.

The average citizen of Glasgow or Edinburgh will doubtless be unhappy at having to pay nearly £6 for a pint of beer however.

TrickyTree83

sss555s wrote: »

Same old figures argument. There is so much corrupt accounting that those figures mean little though we know there is work to do.

It will be a nice challenge.

I know what blend I'll be ticking when it's time to vote.

Need to call complete BS on this.

The figures are checked by the UK statistics authority, reviewed and amended as needed to ensure the methodologies conform to internationally recognised standards on creating national statistics.

Those are far better credentials for a foundation of an analysis than "I think they're wrong, I think they're on the fiddle" with absolutely NO evidence whatsoever to back that up. Nothing. In court you'd be laughed at.

sss555s

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

Need to call complete BS on this.

The figures are checked by the UK statistics authority, reviewed and amended as needed to ensure the methodologies conform to internationally recognised standards on creating national statistics.

Those are far better credentials for a foundation of an analysis than "I think they're wrong, I think they're on the fiddle" with absolutely NO evidence whatsoever to back that up. Nothing. In court you'd be laughed at.

Well I've said it a number of times before but here is an example for the hard of understanding...

Osbourne introduced a extra oil 2bn oil tax when prices were high a few years ago. This was troubling as the break even price went up. Along comes a lower barrel price and the UK Oil fields are struggling and have to lay off.

That tax was never accredited to Scotland and went straight into Westminster.

The tax has been reduced now to help recovery.

That is just one of many examples.

Figures are just a starting point and I'm happy to take my chances when looking at the alternative.

TrickyTree83

sss555s wrote: »

Well I've said it a number of times before but here is an example for the hard of understanding...

Osbourne introduced a extra oil 2bn oil tax when prices were high a few years ago. This was troubling as the break even price went up. Along comes a lower barrel price and the UK Oil fields are struggling and have to lay off.

That tax was never accredited to Scotland and went straight into Westminster.

The tax has been reduced now to help recovery.

That is just one of many examples.

Figures are just a starting point and I'm happy to take my chances when looking at the alternative.

Just check the balance year on year between what Scotland generates, including oil, and what Scotland gets from the treasury. It's not difficult, you can use GERS, it's signed off by the Scottish government and the UK statistics authority - not Wings Over Scotland or Wee Ginger Dug.

ash28

sss555s wrote: »

Same old figures argument. There is so much corrupt accounting that those figures mean little though we know there is work to do.

It will be a nice challenge.

I know what blend I'll be ticking when it's time to vote.

The figures produced by governments are pretty good they are overseen by the UK Statistics Authority and they are pretty hot when something isn't right or designed to mislead......

For instance a briefing about bed blocking in NHS Scotland and NHS England, the ghist of it was published in the Scotsman.....Scotland's bed blocking or delayed discharge had improved by 11% while England's was worse by 27%....cushty, obviously NHS Scotland was far better than NHS England with regard to delayed discharge - except they were comparing apples and oranges as the base definitions of each data set was different.....but doubtless it served a purpose for the Scottish government.

http://www.scotsman.com/news/bed-blocking-rate-in-scottish-hospitals-drops-11-1-4366215

The Statistics Authority wrote to the Chief Statistician to the Scottish government

We have concluded that these comparisons are ambiguous and have the potential to mislead, as:firstly, while Scotland and England, both have a patient level measure reporting delayed discharge/ delayed transfer of care and a measure which translates this into total bed days lost, the base definitions are not the same:

and

As you know, we expect Government producers of statistics to produce and use statistical information responsibly to ensure public trust in statistics is maintained. I am pleased to hear that: 1) Scottish Government will be reviewing their briefing material on delayed discharges to ensure any comparisons with other UK countries are appropriate, and 2) NHS Scotland’s Information Services Division has included a comment on the UK comparability context in the latest publication of delayed discharge statistics to help promote responsible use of these data.

https://www.statisticsauthority.gov.uk/correspondence/nhs-scotlands-delayed-discharge-data/

beecher2

That's the problem with statistics being used by politicians, isn't it? Similar thing happens when politicians discuss the numbers of poorer students attending university - they use UCAS statistics but don't take into consideration that many young people gain their higher education qualifications at college, and don't apply through UCAS.

There's too much focus on single sets of statistics anyway, for examples number of teachers and police officers are focussed on which means any cuts are made to support staff who don't grab the same headlines. Hours spent in A&E is another one - important, but is it really the most important aspect of health care (especially when so many treat it as alternative to a GP appointment)

This is why organisations like FullFact are so important https://fullfact.org/