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

A_Medium_Size_Jock

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.

Exactly how do you think any headline works other than grabbing attention?
The one misunderstanding the context seems to be you.

So on the contrary you have been caught hook, line and sinker by denialist spin.
Scotland population as % of UK = 8.3%
Scotland deficit as % of UK = 20.8%

In effect each and every Scot owes over twice as much to the UK's national debt than the whole of the UK.
And if I could be bothered to take Scotland out of the whole UK equation the difference would be even greater.
Like this:
The remaining £57 billion between 60 million = £950 per head rUK
£15 billion between 5 million = £3000 per head Scotland.
Oh look!
That's more than twice as much.

IveSeenTheLight

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

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

I do understand the correlation.

Why manipulate the headline though other than to grab readers attention with the misdirection.

The headline could have been more accurately written as

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

In fact, in re-reading, I'd now question the first part as well

Is Scotland's debt £15 Billion or is that its deficit?
Looks like the Independent may have mixed up its understanding between debt and deficit.

TrickyTree83

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

I do understand the correlation.

Why manipulate the headline though other than to grab readers attention with the misdirection.

The headline could have been more accurately written as



In fact, in re-reading, I'd now question the first part as well

Is Scotland's debt £15 Billion or is that its deficit?
Looks like the Independent may have mixed up its understanding between debt and deficit.

Definitely deficit.

Debt will be fantastically higher.

8.3% of £1trn+

IveSeenTheLight

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

Exactly how do you think any headline works other than grabbing attention?
The one misunderstanding the context seems to be you.

Not at all.
I'm the one pointing out the context as opposed to using the manipulated headline in the wrong context its written in.

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

So on the contrary you have been caught hook, line and sinker by denialist spin.
Scotland population as % of UK = 8.3%
Scotland deficit as % of UK = 20.8%

In effect each and every Scot owes over twice as much to the UK's national debt than the whole of the UK.
And if I could be bothered to take Scotland out of the whole UK equation the difference would be even greater.
Like this:
The remaining £57 billion between 60 million = £950 per head rUK
£15 billion between 5 million = £3000 per head Scotland.
Oh look!
That's more than twice as much.

Do you consider why we are in this position?

The Scottish economy had become so reliant on the oil revenues and you have to question why there was not more diversification in the good times to broaden the economy.

Westminster was very happy to take the 35 year or so surplus in the good times, without aiding the development of Scotland's other industries in looking further ahead in the future.

I'd far rather we were in a position to consider and impact Scotlands long term future.

A_Medium_Size_Jock

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

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

Why?
Don't we know what we produce?
What our income and outgoings would be?
Strange how other countries do it - the EU countries for example have to produce one & get it approved by the EU.
No, the only reason it would be tough to produce with any degree of certainty is because there is no desire to try.
And the SNP are incapable.

IveSeenTheLight

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

Definitely deficit.

Debt will be fantastically higher.

8.3% of £1trn+

So another error in the article headline

TrickyTree83

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

So another error in the article headline

For once me and you will agree that journalists are particularly bad in the current age.

Which is why op ed's and twitterati commentary aren't worth printing out to wipe myself with.

Stick to the statistics, they tell the truth.

IveSeenTheLight

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

No, the only reason it would be tough to produce with any degree of certainty is because there is no desire to try.
And the SNP are incapable.

The SNP are the only party which can deliver independence and from then, true democracy can prevail for the Scottish electorate.

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

Why?
Don't we know what we produce?
What our income and outgoings would be?

We don't have full control thats why.

Take Whisky as an example, a very good Industry for Scotland, but we do not set the taxation or VAT applied on that produced goods. That comes from Westminster.

Potentially, a Scottish government could set these levels which helps grow that industry and gain more taxation as a result.

Just one example of potential in an independent world.

IveSeenTheLight

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

For once me and you will agree that journalists are particularly bad in the current age.

Which is why op ed's and twitterati commentary aren't worth printing out to wipe myself with.

Stick to the statistics, they tell the truth.

Statistics are good as long as you understand the context

A_Medium_Size_Jock

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Not at all.
I'm the one pointing out the context as opposed to using the manipulated headline in the wrong context its written in.



Do you consider why we are in this position?

The Scottish economy had become so reliant on the oil revenues and you have to question why there was not more diversification in the good times to broaden the economy.

Westminster was very happy to take the 35 year or so surplus in the good times, without aiding the development of Scotland's other industries in looking further ahead in the future.

I'd far rather we were in a position to consider and impact Scotlands long term future.

Now you're just pontificating.

What happened in Scotland in the centuries before oil?
A little longer than 35 years, that.
Or (as mentioned before) the Barnett formula?
Oh - since oil.

The fact is that Scotland could not become independent and become an economic success without significant and sustained cuts to our current standard of living.
Though I would love someone to show me a viable plan I can see none appearing in the near future.