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

mayonnaise

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

No poop Sherlock - though as usual you did not answer the question.
Because I note you did not tell us how that compares to the $110+/bbl for mid 2014 that the figures shown in the link equate to now.

You linked to an Indy article dated March 2016 - with oil prices at their lowest - and asked how the oil and gas reserves value were holding up.
Pretty well I'd say.
You're not having another internet breakdown, are you?

A_Medium_Size_Jock

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

There's no denial and it was not my manipulation.
Be careful what you read and make sure you understand the context.

If you made no denial, what is this:

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Scotland's deficit is of course not twice as large as the whole of the UK

You be careful what you type in order to avoid being caught out.
Again.

TrickyTree83

Shakethedisease wrote: »

The Trade figures are estimated, we've already been through this too. Too many UK headquarters mean reliable figures are hard to come by since they don't do Scotland only. But it's not the point.

The economic arguments you present are all null and void after 2019. Because the UK's economic position and trade is now an unknown. Brexit is going to cost. And you're going to have to start selling the economic advantages to an electorate which was already nearly half way out of the UK,on the political arguments alone, before any Brexit vote even happened.

So far all May has presented is the possible ways in which she can limit the damage of Brexit. No one still is quite sure even WHY we are leaving on economic grounds other than people voted for it. Do you ? Because if you do you really, really need to start selling them all to a very skeptical Scotland. Otherwise Sturgeon is going to turn the tables big time on the economics come 2019.

How does leaving the EU and/or the Single Market advantage Scotland economically ? That's after all what Davidson is going to have to sell during her next few weeks chapping doors. And so far she's been pretty clueless. Maybe you could enlighten her ?

The figures are extrapolated from a survey. True.

The methodologies are also reviewed and tested by the UK statistics authority who adhere to international conventions on statistical representation.

So whilst they are estimates, they're genuinely indicative, we've been through this before.

I disagree that people have to sell Brexit to Scottish people.

1m people voted for it in Scotland.

1.6m people voted to Remain in the EU in Scotland.

The independence campaign needs to convince those in the 1.6m who want to remain in the EU that leaving Scotland's largest market by a factor of nearly 6, is less risky than sticking with it.

It's not complex, and it won't be nuanced to the everyday citizen on the street.

A good deal between the UK and the EU is in everyone's interest apart from the Eurocrats, heads of state will want it, business will want it, etc... in that situation as we've already been through. A bad deal makes the independence case worse, a good deal gives you a shot at winning that argument. But the counter to that will be why not keep the best of both worlds? Which is completely valid.

A_Medium_Size_Jock

mayonnaise wrote: »

You linked to an Indy article dated March 2016 - with oil prices at their lowest - and asked how the oil and gas reserves value were holding up.
Pretty well I'd say.
You're not having another internet breakdown, are you?

You linked to Conrad's post from September 2014 and the state of Scotland in potential independence at that time.
The price quoted was hence from then, 2014.
I asked (referring to that post) how values were holding up.

So the one having a meltdown appears to be you?
Unless you are purposely obfuscating?
It must be one or the other.

IveSeenTheLight

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

No, you won't go there because there is no answer without a significant decrease in our current standard of living.

If you're all for living within means you could at least make some attempt to say how?

I said before that I am pro independence.
The difference however is that I can see no way to achieve this without significant and long-term cuts to our current standard of living.
There's a difference to being the "benefit street" of the UK and bankruptcy; ask a Greek.

No, I wont go there as you were asking me to show how we could maintain our standard of living when you are in agreement with me that initially there would be a cost and an impact to our standard of living.

Why are you pro-independence?

A_Medium_Size_Jock

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

No, I wont go there as you were asking me to show how we could maintain our standard of living when you are in agreement with me that initially there would be a cost and an impact to our standard of living.

Why are you pro-independence?

Because I believe we have the potential.
Parts of Conrad's post which Mayo quotes are relevant, and more besides.
But as yet, no one seems interested in producing a plan for making best use of this potential.
As above the drop would not be "initially", it would in all probability be prolonged.

IveSeenTheLight

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

If you made no denial, what is this:

You be careful what you type in order to avoid being caught out.
Again.

Its not a denial.
The headline is an attention grabber to draw you into the story, its only then that you understand the context, which is far different from the headline

Scottish deficit is circa £15 Billion and the UK's deficit is circa £72 Billion

Yes, it appears that as a percentage of GDP, Scotland deficit is twice that of the UK, but the headline stated

Scotland almost £15 billion in debt and its deficit is almost twice as large as the UK as a whole, say new figures?

The headline is quite clearly written to lure in readers first talking in monetary terms and then switching to a percentage of GDP without clarifying the switch

You have been caught hook, line and sinker by the lure.

IveSeenTheLight

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

Because I believe we have the potential.

As do I

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

But as yet, no one seems interested in producing a plan for making best use of this potential.

It will be very tough to produce this with any certainty until we give it a go and stand on our own two feet.

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

As above the drop would not be "initially", it would in all probability be prolonged.

I guess it depends on your time period definition

TrickyTree83

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Its not a denial.
The headline is an attention grabber to draw you into the story, its only then that you understand the context, which is far different from the headline

Scottish deficit is circa £15 Billion and the UK's deficit is circa £72 Billion

Yes, it appears that as a percentage of GDP, Scotland deficit is twice that of the UK, but the headline stated


The headline is quite clearly written to lure in readers first talking in monetary terms and then switching to a percentage of GDP without clarifying the switch

You have been caught hook, line and sinker by the lure.

You are aware that the monetary figure is less important than the GDP figure?

The GDP figure indicates your ability to cope with it, to grow the economy to shrink it, to devalue your currency (if you control it) to shrink it, or to cut spending or increase taxation to deal with it.

At 10% of GDP, worse than that of Greece, what's your answer?

TrickyTree83

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

As do I



It will be very tough to produce this with any certainty until we give it a go and stand on our own two feet.



I guess it depends on your time period definition

Almost like Dr Pepper adverts do Scottish independence, "give it a go, what's the worst that could happen!". Instead of using available knowledge to indicate what will happen.

The protagonist is of course well versed and read on these issues, so I would think we're just supposed to listen (or read in this case) and believe?