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

TrickyTree83

antrobus wrote: »

It's a national statistic. The fact that a bunch of delusional idiots refuse to recognise that simply explains why they are delusional idiots.



Of course an independent Scotland is going to follow the current UK model. It can subsequently adopt a different model. But God knows what you mean by 'model'.




Yes that's it. You start with the GERS figures. As in, you start in 2015-16 with a fiscal deficit of £14.8 billion (9.5% GDP). Then you apply your "potential and completely different Scottish model going forward". That model will specify the necessary tax rises and expenditure cuts required to reduce that fiscal deficit down to a more sustainable 2%-3%.

That's it. There is no magic money tree growing somewhere in the Trossachs.

Preach friend, preach. Here endeth the lesson.

I'd like to pre-empt some of the typical replies if you'll indulge me...

- an oil fund could offset the deficit (it won't)
- we can export our wind power (hah)
- Westminster is stealing hundreds of £billions off us every year (they don't)
- we can sell all of the assets we'll get from our divorce dividend to pay off our debt (won't come close)
- GERS is wrong (nope)
- it doesn't matter (?)
- magic (most realistic?)
- the SNP will have a plan, they didn't in 2014 but I still voted Yes (hah)
- we can charge you for storing Trident (we move it to create our own jobs)
- we can charge you for water (temporary at best, reservoirs can be built)
- we can charge you for gas (rUK would own 50% of the NS gas fields in a geographic split, even more + oil in a population share split)

prosaver

sss555s wrote: »

This is what they don't seem to understand. They keep droning on about figures under Westminster control. I also notice that 2 of the 3 largest revenue companies in the EU are in the British oil and gas industry. I'm pretty sure I seen that Scotland would be around 12th in the EU as it is today which put's it around Finland level.
Not a bad starting position after Westminster give us a good deal on exit

go for it ..
scotland is costing us money already, got rid of EU scroungers.
vote too leave UK we dont mind. Seriously
I wish we could have a vote.

cogito

Shakethedisease wrote: »

You and Jock above are trying to sell a status quo/safe option and figures/stats pulled from it which simply won't exist in a few weeks time. You are both 'hoping' for a good deal and 'optimistic' about it. That doesn't mean it will happen.
Today:-

And what are you selling but false hope and optimism?

Shakethedisease

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

Preach friend, preach. Here endeth the lesson.

I'd like to pre-empt some of the typical replies if you'll indulge me...

- an oil fund could offset the deficit (it won't)
- we can export our wind power (hah)
- Westminster is stealing hundreds of £billions off us every year (they don't)
- we can sell all of the assets we'll get from our divorce dividend to pay off our debt (won't come close)
- GERS is wrong (nope)
- it doesn't matter (?)
- magic (most realistic?)
- the SNP will have a plan, they didn't in 2014 but I still voted Yes (hah)
- we can charge you for storing Trident (we move it to create our own jobs)
- we can charge you for water (temporary at best, reservoirs can be built)
- we can charge you for gas (rUK would own 50% of the NS gas fields in a geographic split, even more + oil in a population share split)

None of those are the replies I would give. But you still don't get what no longer having the status quo means.

While in 2014 there were two competing columns. a) An independent Scotland compared to b ) Scotland's current economic status within the UK. You and most others right now here and elsewhere are all still stuck on and on arguing about a v's b. Some of us are losing the will to live going over the same GERS arguments and White Paper releases from nearly four years ago.

What people in Scotland are really waiting to see is the new third column in play. Because now you have c) a UK/Scotland outwith the single market. After 29th March going forward option b is no longer relevant.

We'll see soon enough what the Growth Commission comes up with, but it will be a straight fight between a and c. We still have no idea what kind of direction the EU is going to go with Brexit and whether they'll be hardline all or nothing. Or whether they are going to be open to lots of compromises.

I sometimes wonder if Sturgeon has had some kind of advance notice. She's not much of a gambler but she's taken a real risk with very high takes with her announcement last week. I wasn't expecting anything for months yet.. since it opens the floodgates for an avalanche and onslaught of anti-independence media and 'reports'. As we can see happening already from the Times, Moodys etc.

prosaver

i think that some scots are thinking like brexit: they are giving the UK money to stay in but the funny thing is that they are not paying nothing to the UK and getting the UK into more dept.
err.. Hello

TrickyTree83

Shakethedisease wrote: »

None of those are the replies I would give. But you still don't get what no longer having the status quo means.

While in 2014 there were two competing columns. a) An independent Scotland compared to b ) Scotland's current economic status within the UK. You and most others right now here and elsewhere are all still stuck on and on arguing about a v's b. Some of us are losing the will to live going over the same GERS arguments and White Paper releases from nearly four years ago.

What people in Scotland are really waiting to see is the new third column in play. Because now you have c) a UK/Scotland outwith the single market. After 29th March going forward option b is no longer relevant.

We'll see soon enough what the Growth Commission comes up with, but it will be a straight fight between a and c. We still have no idea what kind of direction the EU is going to go with Brexit and whether they'll be hardline all or nothing. Or whether they are going to be open to lots of compromises.

I sometimes wonder if Sturgeon has had some kind of advance notice. She's not much of a gambler but she's taken a real risk with very high takes with her announcement last week. I wasn't expecting anything for months yet.. since it opens the floodgates for an avalanche and onslaught of anti-independence media and 'reports'. As we can see happening already from the Times, Moodys etc.

No I really do understand the meaning of the status quo, it's obviously a given that either way things are going to change. But the starting point from which you experience either scenario remains the same, which is the whole point. Because we know the state of Scotland's economy we can extract certain outcomes from what we know about the possibilities as I did when I outlined the polar opposite scenarios.

Best case - trade as we do now with full EU a-la-carte exactly as everyone wants with no strings attached, beautiful. In that situation the case for independence is stronger since there's no risk attached to it. Trade will continue as it does now, jobs will not be lost, etc..etc...

Worst case - WTO terms, tariff barriers exist. In such a world the case for independence takes a massive hit because the UK market is more important to Scotland than the EU single market. There is no denying that, it's an empirical fact. Like the sky is blue and Arsenal never finish higher than 4th (OK perhaps not like the last one, for the laughs though). In this scenario the options available are tariffs on 11% or tariffs on 64%, risking 80,000 jobs, or risking 1,000,000. Simple choice really.

Unless the deal is closer to perfect than you probably think we're going to get the case for independence is weaker, I'll draw you a graphic if it helps.

So, best case is good for independence, worst case is bad for independence. But then if the outcome is the best case scenario then Jimmy Krankie's got it ar*e about face hasn't she? She wants you to be independent telling you all to fear the worst case scenario - which is why I explained previously that they're a mendacious political party because they're misleading all of you independence supporters, right up that garden path. If there is a bad or no deal independence is the last thing you want to be doing. The statistics on this are dramatically clear, no matter which way its spun the scales are tipped in favour of staying in the union under a bad or no deal scenario.

Edit: I've been quite clear, the logic is not flawed as far as I can tell and the sentiments are echoed by many other posters on here as well as economists and the media. It's not media spin, no lies to convince people to stay in a dictatorial Westminster regime for my or others chance to benefit at your expense, just empirical facts about where Scotland is as a country right now and how the possible options in front of Scotland will affect it. Ranging from the worst to the best case scenarios. I'm not claiming to know the outcome of negotiations ahead of time, if I did I wouldn't be on here I'd be playing lotto and down the racetrack. But it's very easy to establish the two poles in the range of outcomes and establish what will happen to the Scottish economy based on those circumstances.

If I'm wrong in your opinion, can you please tell me (citing evidence) why I'm wrong? Because to me this appears to be childlike in its difficulty to understand.

Reading the data took a long time, I've invested effort into understanding this topic. It frustrates me when I find the resources, post them here only for them to be ignored when really I'm doing you and others a favour by being one of those people who takes the time to read through a 50 page document rather than the social media slurry.

jadex

https://www.rte.ie/news/special-reports/2017/0216/853044-shetland-brexit-scotland/

Maree Todd, a Scottish National Party lawmaker, said that the party could discuss Shetland's sovereignty, but that she believed it would be better off as part of an independent Scotland.

hear, hear.... double standards or just playing?

Scotland has around 60% of the EU's oil reserves and the second-largest volume of proven natural gas reserves, most of it located around Shetland.

Enterprise_1701C

Shakethedisease wrote: »

None of those are the replies I would give. But you still don't get what no longer having the status quo means.

While in 2014 there were two competing columns. a) An independent Scotland compared to b ) Scotland's current economic status within the UK. You and most others right now here and elsewhere are all still stuck on and on arguing about a v's b. Some of us are losing the will to live going over the same GERS arguments and White Paper releases from nearly four years ago.

What people in Scotland are really waiting to see is the new third column in play. Because now you have c) a UK/Scotland outwith the single market. After 29th March going forward option b is no longer relevant.

We'll see soon enough what the Growth Commission comes up with, but it will be a straight fight between a and c. We still have no idea what kind of direction the EU is going to go with Brexit and whether they'll be hardline all or nothing. Or whether they are going to be open to lots of compromises.

I sometimes wonder if Sturgeon has had some kind of advance notice. She's not much of a gambler but she's taken a real risk with very high takes with her announcement last week. I wasn't expecting anything for months yet.. since it opens the floodgates for an avalanche and onslaught of anti-independence media and 'reports'. As we can see happening already from the Times, Moodys etc.

She can probably see the council elections coming, and also the possible general election this year. She wants to get things rolling before she has her majority cut.

Even she has to realise people will wake up to the ridiculousness of the idea of independence from the cash cow.

mrginge

Enterprise_1701C wrote: »

She can probably see the council elections coming, and also the possible general election this year. She wants to get things rolling before she has her majority cut.

Even she has to realise people will wake up to the ridiculousness of the idea of independence from the cash cow.

Personally I think the SNP will smash the council elections.

beecher2

Enterprise_1701C wrote: »

She can probably see the council elections coming, and also the possible general election this year. She wants to get things rolling before she has her majority cut.

Even she has to realise people will wake up to the ridiculousness of the idea of independence from the cash cow.

What majority are you referring to? The SNP are at around 47% for Westminster intentions so I'd be more worried if I was one of the 3 Lib Dem, Labour and Tory MPs.

Because of STV, Scottish councils will be run by varied selections of coalitions. Labour did relatively well last time round and are facing losing their very last power bases.

I'm not ever going to think self determination is ridiculous, and I'm not the only one.