The finances of an Independent Scotland.

TrickyTree83

Herzlos wrote: »

I assume you're also not factoring in the number of jobs that may move north of the wall, if Scotland has better links to the EU than rUK does?

No-one believes your 1,000,000 jobs at risk figure, because it's clearly nonsense; you're trying to imply that about 40% of Scottish jobs are going to be "at risk", whatever that means since you've said it's not the same as "lost".
There's nearly 962,000 jobs (if I'm reading the table correctly) that involve a rUK HQ somewhere, and there's no reason to believe that there would be a mass exodus out of Scotland for most of those jobs. Most of the HQ jobs are already in rUK.

Some might split into Scotland/rUK companies, most will largely continue as-is.

How could anyone factor in an unknown quantity of jobs moving north of the border if any at all? Be sensible.

It's not my ~1,000,000 figure, if you've got an issue with it or you think it's crazy take it up with the professor. I can't answer for him.

If we adopt the position that the SNP, pro-independence support and remain support have regarding economists, is it not acceptable to say that if ~80,000 jobs are at risk because of Brexit in Scotland, that ~1,000,000 jobs are at risk because of independence?

Regardless of the nuanced possibilities that you personally believe will pan out, is the statement above acceptable?

Edit:

There's nearly 962,000 jobs (if I'm reading the table correctly) that involve a rUK HQ somewhere

Not necessarily, you can see the breakdown between rUK owned firms, Exports to rUK and Other to UK. Exports to rUK are (as I would interpret) not rUK owned otherwise they would be under the rUK owned category.

Herzlos

I may be misreading, but I didn't see anything saying that one million jobs are at risk. What does "at risk" mean here, anyway?

I doubt anyone is in disagreement as to how heavily integrated Scottish and rUK corporations are, but I also doubt that more than a couple of percent of those dependent jobs would disappear unless there were significant difficulties in dealing with the border issue. We are still going to be sharing a large land border and a common language/culture. rUK is still going to want to sell us stuff, and is still going to want to buy our stuff, because it's (unless obstructed) logistically trivial to do so. It's orders of magnitude more closely integrated with rUK than the UK is with the EU.

I've no idea what'll happen to job totals in an iScotland. Some companies may drop their Scottish branches entirely (so a loss), some may move staff up to get back into the EU (a gain), some may need to generate additional HQ jobs in the Scotland (also a gain). We'll presumably also be moving the Faslane base + staff + supporting industries south, so there'd be a loss there, too.

But it's entirely dependent on the deals we get with the EU and rUK. It's probably going to be a small loss. But if that's acceptable for Brexit, why isn't it acceptable for iScotland?
It's all about sovereignty, right?

I'm quite willing to take a small hit economy in order for us to be able to do our own thing and not having to get dragged down by the Tories.

TrickyTree83

Herzlos wrote: »

I may be misreading, but I didn't see anything saying that one million jobs is at risk. What does "at risk" mean here, anyway?

I've no idea what'll happen to job totals in an iScotland. Some companies may drop their Scottish branches entirely (so a loss), some may move staff up to get back into the EU (a gain), some may need to generate additional HQ jobs in the Scotland (also a gain). We'll presumably also be moving the Faslane base + staff + supporting industries south, so there'd be a loss there, too.

But it's entirely dependent on the deals we get with the EU and rUK. It's probably going to be a small loss. But if that's acceptable for Brexit, why isn't it acceptable for iScotland?
It's all about sovereignty, right?

I would say that the title of Table 3 is pretty self explanatory.

Table 3: Scottish Jobs Dependent on UK

As I said, forget the nuanced whataboutery based on your opinion and tell me if you would please, if the SNP and pro-independence support are correct to use ~80,000 jobs at risk as a reason to describe Brexit as the gravest threat to the Scottish economy whilst also ignoring the information regarding the number of jobs at risk from independence?

Edit:

But it's entirely dependent on the deals we get with the EU and rUK. It's probably going to be a small loss. But if that's acceptable for Brexit, why isn't it acceptable for iScotland?

That doesn't work either.

Lets say hypothetically that there is a deal between the UK and the EU and it affects 50% of our trade with the EU negatively, so the jobs related to the 50% of affected trade would be at risk.

For Scotland that would be 50% of 11% (that's 5.5%) which you trade with the EU.

If Scotland became independent and joined the EU bloc, that 5.5% at risk changes to 50% of 64%, which as I'm sure you're aware is 32%. Which figure is higher, 5.5% or 32%? So where is the acceptable amount of risk?

Herzlos

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

I would say that the title of Table 3 is pretty self explanatory.

I disagree, or at least thing it's misleading as it's otherwise clearly wrong. 962,000 may be "dependent" on the UK, but you'd have to be an idiot to think that means that they'd all actually go away with independence, when the workforce is only 2.6m strong.

As I said, forget the nuanced whataboutery based on your opinion and tell me if you would please, if the SNP and pro-independence support are correct to use ~80,000 jobs at risk as a reason to describe Brexit as the gravest threat to the Scottish economy whilst also ignoring the information regarding the number of jobs at risk from independence?

They are correct; one of the figures is plausible, and the other one is clearly impossible.

If the SNP said that Brexit would cost us 1,000,000 jobs I'd find it just as ridiculous as this report that iScotland would cost us 1,000,000 jobs, because it doesn't pass even the most basic of scrutiny.

There are about 540,000 people employed in the public sector, so that leaves about 2,160,000 elsewhere.
Do you really think we're going to lose every other private sector job by leaving the UK?
That all of those companies will just pull their entire operation out of Scotland and no-one would fill the voids?

TrickyTree83

Herzlos wrote: »

I disagree, or at least thing it's misleading as it's otherwise clearly wrong. 962,000 may be "dependent" on the UK, but you'd have to be an idiot to think that means that they'd all actually go away with independence, when the workforce is only 2.6m strong.





They are correct; one of the figures is plausible, and the other one is clearly impossible.

If the SNP said that Brexit would cost us 1,000,000 jobs I'd find it just as ridiculous as this report that iScotland would cost us 1,000,000 jobs, because it doesn't pass even the most basic of scrutiny.

There are about 540,000 people employed in the public sector, so that leaves about 2,160,000 elsewhere.
Do you really think we're going to lose every other private sector job by leaving the UK?
That all of those companies will just pull their entire operation out of Scotland and no-one would fill the voids?

There's no need to be so defensive, claiming I'm saying the jobs will be lost, no one can possibly know how many will be lost. Not you, me, Brian, the Queen, etc...

What I'm talking about is which 'pound of flesh' are you willing to risk. The larger amount of trade, jobs, revenue or the smaller amount? If you're pro-independence then you're willing to risk the larger amount. If you're not then you're willing to risk the smaller amount of trade, jobs and revenue with the EU.

It really is quite simple.

Edit: There's no need for all your whatboutery or nuanced beliefs/opinions. The data is there, the trade statistics produced by the Scottish government are free to peruse on the Scottish government website, as is GERS.

With regards to the economists predictions on number of jobs at risk, how you can classify one set as absurd and one set as realistic on the basis of "basic scrutiny" without actually defining that for anyone is ridiculous. What you're actually doing there is "I believe economist A, and disbelieve economist B, because economist A confirms my bias", whereas I'd say they all talk crap but if you want to cite statistics from economist A you cannot discount economist B without credible proof.

Which is where I would say see: The SNP are liars. They either lie about what they believe is the greatest threat to the Scottish economy because they believe economists, or they don't believe economists and they are lying by using economists data to support their position.

wotsthat

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

I would say that the title of Table 3 is pretty self explanatory.

It doesn't follow that these jobs will be lost if Scotland becomes independent. It's Project Fear stuff.

Just as the UK will continue to trade with the EU they'll also continue to trade with Scotland.

You'd be better off trying to demonstrate that the SNP are lying rather than scoring points about their supporters only believing economists that confirm their bias. We all know that's the case and it's part of the human condition rather than being unique to nationalists.

TrickyTree83

wotsthat wrote: »

It doesn't follow that these jobs will be lost if Scotland becomes independent. It's Project Fear stuff.

Just as the UK will continue to trade with the EU they'll also continue to trade with Scotland.

You'd be better off trying to demonstrate that the SNP are lying rather than scoring points about their supporters only believing economists that confirm their bias. We all know that's the case and it's part of the human condition rather than being unique to nationalists.

Of course, I would agree. Fear that ~80,000 jobs are at risk without telling everyone about the opposing view presented by the very type of people they rely on for the ~80,000 figure.

Can we clear up once and for all, I've not said or intended to imply that 1,000,000 jobs would be lost. Neither does the economist the SNP use claim ~80,000 jobs would be lost as a result of Brexit. It's all about the risk to those jobs.

Number of jobs at risk from Brexit = ~80,000
Number of jobs at risk from iScotland = ~1,000,000

You can input nuanced opinions, beliefs and whataboutery into both situations. But what's the point in that since no one knows if they can come true. So if you're going to put your faith in economists that Brexit = bad, then by definition the same must be true for economists who tell you that iScotland = bad. Otherwise you occupy a conflicted position.

Just to put some additional context into this.

Fraser of Allander report: Brexit could cost 80,000 jobs

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-37564729

Brian Ashcroft
Glasgow
Emeritus Professor in Economics and Editor of Economic Commentary, Fraser of Allander Institute, University of Strathclyde

http://profile.typepad.com/6p015393ec64ea970b

http://www.scottisheconomywatch.com/brian-ashcrofts-scottish/2014/06/scottish-jobs-and-the-uk.html

wotsthat

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

Can we clear up once and for all, I've not said or intended to imply that 1,000,000 jobs would be lost. Neither does the economist the SNP use claim ~80,000 jobs would be lost as a result of Brexit. It's all about the risk to those jobs.

Number of jobs at risk from Brexit = ~80,000
Number of jobs at risk from iScotland = ~1,000,000

No, you never said 1m jobs would be lost - why would you - it would be BS.

But, let's be clear, if the number of jobs at risk from iScotland is 1m then the implication is very much that 1m could be lost.

Would/ could - it's BS whatever and now we're debating whether it's true much to the delight of the SNP as they continue to peddle their own BS.

As I said you can't fight BS with BS as it just ends up as an argument about whose !!!! smells better.

TrickyTree83

wotsthat wrote: »

No, you never said 1m jobs would be lost - why would you - it would be BS.

But, let's be clear, if the number of jobs at risk from iScotland is 1m then the implication is very much that 1m could be lost.

Would/ could - it's BS whatever and now we're debating whether it's true much to the delight of the SNP as they continue to peddle their own BS.

As I said you can't fight BS with BS as it just ends up as an argument about whose !!!! smells better.

Right, good. But you can see my point that if the SNP insist on telling the Scottish people that brexit is the gravest threat to the Scottish economy (which their donors disagree with, bizarrely)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/02/snp-donor-sir-brian-souter-brexit-damage-is-being-overestimated/

A SNP spokesman said: “Brexit is far and away the biggest threat to Scotland’s economy, jobs and long-term prosperity, with a potential cost of up to £11.2 billion per year by 2030 and up to 80,000 lost jobs over the next decade.”

That the SNP are indeed lying if they are putting their faith in the Fraser of Allander Institute, since the same institution says that ~1,000,000 jobs would be at risk in iScotland.

So those pro-independence supporters who lap up the SNP lines regarding Brexit must also take heed of the same people saying iScotland is a terrible idea, possibly 10 times worse than Brexit. How do you reconcile these views without blatantly being wilfully ignorant?

wotsthat

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

You can input nuanced opinions, beliefs and whataboutery into both situations. But what's the point in that since no one knows if they can come true. So if you're going to put your faith in economists that Brexit = bad, then by definition the same must be true for economists who tell you that iScotland = bad. Otherwise you occupy a conflicted position.

There's no conflict in calling BS on (a) iScotland triggering a nuclear winter and (b) iScotland leading to milk and honey once the SNP have control of all the levers.