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

Shakethedisease

antrobus wrote: »

And has done fairly consistently since 1998, even including the 'geographic share' of North Sea oil. In fact, over the 18 fiscal years from 1998/99 to 2015/16, Scotland's accumulated fiscal deficits amounted to £130 bn.

Over the same period the UK's accumulated fiscal deficits amounted to £1,091 bn. Scotland has 8.3% of the UK population. 8.3% of £1,091 bn is £91 bn. So Scotland's fiscal deficit is on average 43% greater than the UK. (Plus £39 bn is pretty much 'real money'.)

And it means that there is a good argument that Scotland should really take on the repayment of a much greater proportion of the national debt than would be the case on a per capita basis.

And the UK had to bail out Scotland's failed banks as well.:)

Certainly running a larger fiscal deficit does not appear to have done Scotland much good. Their economy flatlined in 2016, and is now one quarter away from recession.

Love the still repeated delusions about "Scotland's" banks etc. Almost like some still don't understand how private businesses work.

The arguments and debate now need to move forward now and look to the future. Include Brexit in future equations and this mode of Conservative governance. Bleating sheeplike old chestnuts from circa 2011 isn't really going to cut it.

Brexit might really hurt the current as it stands Scottish economy, and a Brexit under this and successive Conservative governments might hurt even more.

[FONT=&quot]But Brexit changes everything. The economic cost to the UK of leaving the EU could be as high as a reduction of 10% in average incomes by 2030. If Scotland, by becoming independent, can avoid that fate then you have a clear long term economic gain right there. But it is more than that. If, Scotland can remain in the Single Market it could be the destination of the foreign investment that once came to the UK as a gateway into the EU. By accepting free movement, it could benefit from the immigration that has so benefited the UK public finances over the last decade.

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]There is an additional issue regarding the short term costs of independence. With little oil at a low price there is no doubt that the rUK is currently subsidising Scotland by a significant amount. Under Cameron it was reasonable to suppose that this subsidy would continue for some time, if only to prevent another referendum. I do not think we can make the same assumption about Theresa Brexit May. The prospects for the UK public finances under Brexit are dire, yet after the Budget there seems no way that the Conservatives will put up taxes to pay for the extra resources the NHS and other public services so desperately need.

As the situation gets steadily worse, nothing - absolutely nothing - will be safe from continuing austerity. To be brutally honest, if the SNP loses another referendum, even the formidable Ruth Davidson will not be able to prevent Scotland being plundered by this government.[/FONT]

https://mainlymacro.blogspot.co.uk/2017/03/brexit-makes-economics-of-scottish.html#comment-form

Harsh but true.

TrickyTree83

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Love the still repeated delusions about "Scotland's" banks etc. Almost like some still don't understand how private businesses work.

The arguments and debate now need to move forward now and look to the future. Include Brexit in future equations and this mode of Conservative governance. Bleating sheeplike old chestnuts from circa 2011 isn't really going to cut it.

Brexit might really hurt the current as it stands Scottish economy, and a Brexit under this and successive Conservative governments might hurt even more.

https://mainlymacro.blogspot.co.uk/2017/03/brexit-makes-economics-of-scottish.html#comment-form

Harsh but true.

It's astoundingly dull for a professor.

Even if Brexit did hurt the UK economy (incl Scotland) it's still not going to be as bad as an independent Scotland behind a WTO trade barrier (which would need to be the case for the 'worst case scenario' predictions to come to fruition.

Some of the comments are even worse.

cogito

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Love the still repeated delusions about "Scotland's" banks etc. Almost like some still don't understand how private businesses work.

The arguments and debate now need to move forward now and look to the future. Include Brexit in future equations and this mode of Conservative governance. Bleating sheeplike old chestnuts from circa 2011 isn't really going to cut it.

Brexit might really hurt the current as it stands Scottish economy, and a Brexit under this and successive Conservative governments might hurt even more.

https://mainlymacro.blogspot.co.uk/2017/03/brexit-makes-economics-of-scottish.html#comment-form

Harsh but true.

May I remind you what Alec Salmond said to an audience in Harvard in March 2008:

'With RBS and HBOS - two of the world's largest banks - Scotland has global leaders today, tomorrow and for the long-term.'

So they are Scottish banks when it suits the SNP and not when it doesn't.

Shakethedisease

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

It's astoundingly dull for a professor.

Even if Brexit did hurt the UK economy (incl Scotland) it's still not going to be as bad as an independent Scotland behind a WTO trade barrier (which would need to be the case for the 'worst case scenario' predictions to come to fruition.

Some of the comments are even worse.

It's a surprisingly common view these days. That while Brexit is bad, a Scotland remaining in a Brexit UK under a Conservative Govt will make things 10 times worse.

The outcome of Brexit has effectively demonstrated how Scotland’s voice will never truly be heard.

This is one thing that Westminster cannot really be counted on right now, under a Conservative government that is currently continuing its ambition of cutting down on even more benefits for the poorest in society. Right now the Tories are reducing child benefits, that will ensure that ‘a quarter of a million children’ will find themselves in poverty, while also scaling down on bereavement benefits that are leading to significant worries among terminally ill patients who are concerned for their families’ futures

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/selena-drake/scottish-independence_b_15896096.html

I don't agree with all of the article above, but the jist of it is essentially the same as the professors, but from another more grass roots perspective.

Shakethedisease

cogito wrote: »

May I remind you what Alec Salmond said to an audience in Harvard in March 2008:

'With RBS and HBOS - two of the world's largest banks - Scotland has global leaders today, tomorrow and for the long-term.'

So they are Scottish banks when it suits the SNP and not when it doesn't.

That's politics for you. But the reality is that they have Scotland in the name, that's it. I was just surprised to see the same old chestnuts getting wheeled out again on here as if none of us know any better. I should certainly hope someone like antrobus and yourself don't really believe what he wrote has any sort of basis in fact.

TrickyTree83

Shakethedisease wrote: »

It's a surprisingly common view these days. That while Brexit is bad, a Scotland remaining in a Brexit UK under a Conservative Govt will make things 10 times worse.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/selena-drake/scottish-independence_b_15896096.html

I don't agree with all of the article above, but the jist of it is essentially the same as the professors, but from another more grass roots perspective.

Common amongst those who continually get things wrong, yes. Why change the habit of a lifetime.

No answers on the trade barrier, no answers on the deficit or the debt, no answers on the border effect on GDP... just no answers. A lofty ambition opinion piece does not a summer make.

antrobus

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Love the still repeated delusions about "Scotland's" banks etc. Almost like some still don't understand how private businesses work. ...

RBS and HBOS were Scottish Banks. It's a simple matter of fact. It would be delusional to believe otherwise.:) Had Scotland been independent in 2007, it would have been down to Scotland to find the money to bail them out. Or not, as the case may be.

Probably not, I expect, as I don't think an independent Scotland could have afforded the £75bn or so that was required. (That's getting on for 50% of GDP.) Scotland would have been an Iceland with less fish, no geo-thermal power, and Brent Crude about to crash to $40. At least Greece has better weather.:)

Shakethedisease wrote: »

..The arguments and debate now need to move forward now and look to the future.....

So what is Scotland going to do about its 9.5% fiscal deficit in the future? What do you propose to do about it? This hypothetical independent Scotland needs to run a fiscal deficit of 3% or less to join the European club

Shakethedisease wrote: »

... Include Brexit in future equations and this mode of Conservative governance. Bleating sheeplike old chestnuts from circa 2011 isn't really going to cut it. ..

Well in 2010-11, Scotland's deficit was 'only' 8.3% of GDP, in 2015-16 it was 9.5% GDP. So you're right, bleating sheeplike old chestnuts from circa 2011 isn't really going to cut it at all; things are getting worse. Now you would need more austerity.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

..Brexit might really hurt the current as it stands Scottish economy, and a Brexit under this and successive Conservative governments might hurt even more.

The author of that blog you linked to, says this of the SNP, that "It is difficult to forgive them for trying to pretend that the short term costs for the Scottish people of leaving the UK would not be severe."

So independence is going to hurt as well.

Don't you ever bother reading your links?

Shakethedisease wrote: »

..https://mainlymacro.blogspot.co.uk/2017/03/brexit-makes-economics-of-scottish.html#comment-form

Posting a link to some comment on some blog isn't really much of a contribution to a 'debate'. You need better sources.:)

Although, if you'd bothered to read the actual blog, you would see that the author thinks that Brexit will be an "economic disaster", and that by becoming independent, Scotland can avoid that fate, since it "could be the destination of the foreign investment that once came to the UK as a gateway into the EU", and that "by accepting free movement, it could benefit from the immigration that has so benefited the UK public finances over the last decade".

However what he fails to make clear is that this alleged "clear long term economic gain" is in the, well, 'long term'. Scotland can't avoid Brexit; Brexit (it appears) will happen in March 2019. Even if (a) a second referendum actually takes place, and (b) it produces the 'right result', independence won't happen until many years later.

So Brexit might really hurt the current as it stands Scottish economy, and then you have these "severe" "short term costs" of independence to deal with, all from a starting point of a 9.5% fiscal deficit.

Don't you want to debate those issues?

P.S. The blog has an interesting argument that; since the "UK is currently subsidising Scotland by a significant amount" and the "prospects for the UK public finances under Brexit are dire", then "if the SNP loses another referendum, even the formidable Ruth Davidson will not be able to prevent Scotland being plundered by this government". By which I think he means that a future UK government will seek to scale back the Scottish subsidy. Although I'm inclined to point out that since the subsidy will definitely go to zero if the SNP wins another referendum, so what he's really saying, Scotland is f... stuffed whatever the decision.

Now might be a good time to see if there really are any magic money trees in theTrossachs.
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]

sss555s

antrobus wrote: »

So what is Scotland going to do about its 9.5% fiscal deficit in the future? What do you propose to do about it?

You constantly fail to understand that service charges will be much reduced and in some cases turn from a charge to an income. A few examples are...

Defence
2002-2008 £5.6bn more was charged to Scotland than was spent in Scotland.
Trident costs Scotland £200m per year. This will turn into a valuable income if it is maintained post Sexit.

Administration
Scotland has high tax admin costs as part of the UK. Beveridge and Mirrllees reported that an independent Scotland could save as much as 50%.
The UK border agency costs are mainly focused on the English channel which would give an independent Scotland a much lower cost to maintain the same level of service.

Westminster
Scotland paid £300m over 5 years which would be mostly saved and while not a massive saving it would help.
In 2013 Scotland paid £9.4billion in service charges it had no control over.

islandannie

sss555s wrote: »

You constantly fail to understand that service charges will be much reduced and in some cases turn from a charge to an income. A few examples are...

Defence
2002-2008 £5.6bn more was charged to Scotland than was spent in Scotland.
Trident costs Scotland £200m per year. This will turn into a valuable income if it is maintained post Sexit.

Administration
Scotland has high tax admin costs as part of the UK. Beveridge and Mirrllees reported that an independent Scotland could save as much as 50%.
The UK border agency costs are mainly focused on the English channel which would give an independent Scotland a much lower cost to maintain the same level of service.

Westminster
Scotland paid £300m over 5 years which would be mostly saved and while not a massive saving it would help.
In 2013 Scotland paid £9.4billion in service charges it had no control over.

Oh so much garbage so little time!!!
I suspect this utter rubbish is plucked straight from the wangs over scotland site.
Please point us to the qualitative proof of these figures? Or go away and read up on economics

Shakethedisease

antrobus wrote: »

RBS and HBOS were Scottish Banks. It's a simple matter of fact. It would be delusional to believe otherwise.:) Had Scotland been independent in 2007, it would have been down to Scotland to find the money to bail them out. Or not, as the case may be.

Probably not, I expect, as I don't think an independent Scotland could have afforded the £75bn or so that was required. (That's getting on for 50% of GDP.) Scotland would have been an Iceland with less fish, no geo-thermal power, and Brent Crude about to crash to $40. At least Greece has better weather.:)

So what is Scotland going to do about its 9.5% fiscal deficit in the future? What do you propose to do about it? This hypothetical independent Scotland needs to run a fiscal deficit of 3% or less to join the European club

Well I'm not going to quote the entirety of your post. But just about all of it proves the point I was making. You managed the whole lot barely mentioning Brexit, barely mentioning what the Tories have planned over the next few years and still stuck sniping on about the same stuff we've all been hearing since 2011.

Brexit will hurt Scotland's interests no matter what happens. This particular Conservative Govt and any following will only exacerbate matters. You and others like you are still living in some 2014 fantasy land where Spain will veto, the banks are Scottish ( let's forget the Halifax thing ).. and Shetland will stay in the UK if there's a Yes vote plastered all over newspapers today. As well as the myth of 3% fiscal deficits to join the EU ( <--- it's for joining the Eurozone by the way, where on earth are you getting your info from ? ).

Move on. Brexit and what this Conservative govt indicates re Scottish future interests both political and economic over the next few years ( ie ignore ) isn't sustainable. Not in a political union.
Ashcroft's polling released yesterday has a full 55% of Scots who don't like the way the UK is heading. And that's not including the 17% of don't know's. With Sturgeon topping the politicians poll on doing a good job. Davidson is now firmly in negative territory, May even worse. Things are inching slowly but surely the Scottish Govt's way on this as people wake up to the reality of Brexit and May in charge.

The professor's blog is correct. Scottish independence IS more attractive in the wake of Brexit and this Tory Govt. If only for the fact it highlights just how little relevance Scotland has in this so called equal partnered ( copyright BetterTogether 2014 ) union.

Deficits can be dealt with, but only when one has the tools needed to do so. One has to obtain the tools first...