View Full Version : Nationalist maths
weezer 316
18-Oct-13, 18:49
Ive seen a few things recently about Scotlands oil being the icing on a cake recently, that we are at break even without oil (19% of our tax take last year alone)
Any SNP fan boys want to shed light on this? http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2011/06/21144516/7
If you cant be bothered reading, I will summarise - We get out way more than we pay in, around 6bn in 2009, with record oil revenues, but up to 12.5bn in 2010.
Any takers?
weezer 316
19-Oct-13, 21:56
No takers? Squidge? Oddaquine? Anybody? Anybody at all...
Je suis en vacances en Fance et je ne suis pas "doing politics" jusqu'à ce que je rentre chez moi. :)
Salut mon ami
hic :)
equusdriving
20-Oct-13, 20:22
Je suis en vacances en Fance et je ne suis pas "doing politics" jusqu'à ce que je rentre chez moi. :)
Salut mon ami
hic :)
well I think that made more sense than your usual post's.............but then again I can't speak french :lol:
orkneycadian
21-Oct-13, 01:17
Ive seen a few things recently about Scotlands oil being the icing on a cake recently
..........
21430
well I think that made more sense than your usual post's.............but then again I can't speak french :lol:
Or sense, either! :Razz
equusdriving
21-Oct-13, 19:04
Or sense, either! :Razz what because I cant see Emperor Salmond'ds new clothes? :lol:
weezer 316
21-Oct-13, 19:32
Forgive the typo! Typing on a table and had to delete a word.
Still no takers? Surely one of you nationalist mob who bleat on about finances you clearly havens the foggiest idea about will give me a take on it? Where is that one sentence wonder pirate lassie?
Ive seen a few things recently about Scotlands oil being the icing on a cake recently, that we are at break even without oil (19% of our tax take last year alone)
Any SNP fan boys want to shed light on this? http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2011/06/21144516/7
If you cant be bothered reading, I will summarise - We get out way more than we pay in, around 6bn in 2009, with record oil revenues, but up to 12.5bn in 2010.
Any takers?
And you came to that conclusion, in 2013, using what information..........your link only goes to "Government Expenditure and Revenue Scotland 2009-2010" " 5 NORTH SEA REVENUE". and your summary means squat with that link as proof of anything....bar North Sea revenue up to 2010.
Maybe a more useful link would be http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/statistics/receipts/disagg-info.pdf which is UK HMRC (which you will most likely believe) trying to separate out the tax receipts and apportion them to each country in the UK. Now, maybe I'm stupid........but if we are paying silly money to Westminster, out of the 90 odd% of our input to the UK Treasury that we currently don't get back and Westminster gets to spend "on our behalf" to maintain HMRC and other financial institutions, pay benefits and wage wars..but who still, in these days of computer programmong, do not appear to be able to accurately identify what comes in from where.....so how are they more accurate than GERS who do exactly the same and base their extrapolations on the very same figures using much the same methods?
Way I see it is, to an extent, the way it is viewed here http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/prominent-businessman-challenges-darling-on-the-economy/
How good is your maths?
Care to discuss
In 2011-12, total Scottish non-North Sea public sector revenue was estimated at £46.3 billion, (8.2% of total UK non-North Sea revenue). Including a per capita share of North Sea revenue, total Scottish public sector revenue was estimated at £47.2 billion (8.2% of UK total public sector revenue). When an illustrative geographical share of North Sea revenue is included, total Scottish public sector revenue was estimated at £56.9 billion (9.9% of UK total public sector revenue).
In 2011-12, total public sector expenditure for the benefit of Scotland by the UK Government, Scottish Government and all other parts of the public sector, including a per capita share of UK debt interest payments, was £64.5 billion. This is equivalent to 9.3% of total UK public sector expenditure.
In 2011-12, the estimated current budget balance for the public sector in Scotland was a deficit of £14.0 billion (11.2% of GDP) excluding North Sea revenue, a deficit of £13.0 billion (10.2% of GDP) including a per capita share of North Sea revenue or a deficit of £3.4 billion (2.3% of GDP) including an illustrative geographical share of North Sea revenue.
In 2011-12, the UK as a whole ran a current budget deficit, including 100% of North Sea revenue, worth £92.3 billion (6.0% of GDP).
In 2011-12, Scotland's estimated net fiscal balance was a deficit of £18.2 billion (14.6% of GDP) when excluding North Sea revenue, a deficit of £17.2 billion (13.5% of GDP) when including a per capita share of North Sea revenue or a deficit of £7.6 billion (5.0% of GDP) when an illustrative geographical share of North Sea revenue is included.
In 2011-12, the equivalent UK position including 100% of North Sea revenue, referred to in the UK Public Sector Accounts as 'net borrowing', was a deficit of £121.0 billion (or 7.9% of GDP).
So looking at the above.......does the UK need us...or do we need the Union? I think the former......you appear to think the latter.......so why do you think that we need the Union? How does it benefit us?
piratelassie
22-Oct-13, 11:09
The economic argument for an independent Scotland has already been won, as conceded by Camreon, Darling and Co. The argument now moves on to other areas.
weezer 316
22-Oct-13, 11:23
Did you even bother to read that link?
Here, one year 09/10, most recent on the report with all the oil coming to us (£6.5bn).
We raised £48.13bn
We spent £59.17bn
We are out by £11bn. How are we going to plug that gap??
This is the official line here on the Scottish govt website
Now our fiscal position has been better than the UK as a whole in the past 2 years. What about before that and crucially in the future with declining oil production (Its feel a third since 1999). What then? Union good then?
RagnarRocks
22-Oct-13, 11:49
The economic argument for an independent Scotland has already been won, as conceded by Camreon, Darling and Co. The argument now moves on to other areas.I should be most grateful if you could post a link from and independent body that verifies your assertion,as having read an awful lot about this I've yet to see any figures which support your stance
equusdriving
22-Oct-13, 12:09
The economic argument for an independent Scotland has already been won, as conceded by Camreon, Darling and Co. The argument now moves on to other areas.
ahh but that depends how many times you are spending the oil revenue, as at last count Alex Salmond had it in 3 places at the same time[disgust]
piratelassie
23-Oct-13, 00:27
May I repeat, Scotland does not only have oil and gas , Scotland ALSO has oil and gas.
equusdriving
23-Oct-13, 00:33
May I repeat, Scotland does not only have oil and gas , Scotland ALSO has oil and gas.
then why is it that its normally the only thing your lot shout about? and if it is not a major issue why fiddle the numbers?
weezer 316
23-Oct-13, 10:29
Oh it's been won alright, by the union side! The holes in our finances are simply not acknowledged by nationalists. This is why you are losing. Until we have a answer as to who we plug this gaps you will continue to lose.
Did you even bother to read that link?
Here, one year 09/10, most recent on the report with all the oil coming to us (£6.5bn).
We raised £48.13bn
We spent £59.17bn
We are out by £11bn. How are we going to plug that gap??
This is the official line here on the Scottish govt website
Now our fiscal position has been better than the UK as a whole in the past 2 years. What about before that and crucially in the future with declining oil production (Its feel a third since 1999). What then? Union good then?
The same way the UK Government plugs its £121 billion+ gaps between income and expenditure every year, perhaps? Or is that too obvious? Mind you, maybe we won't make the same kind of decisions as UK plc does as to how they try to recoup the money. That £121 billion gap they have with all the oil/gas revenues..plus the input from Scotland they only pretend to spend in Scotland.....as in the £3.3 billion we pay into defence, of which we get £1.9 billion back into the Scottish economy (so that's our Budget deficit down about £1 billion right there).....and then we have to pay our share of the Interest on the UK National Debt, which was £43 billion last year........so that removes another £3and a half billion or so.
Then there is the fact we pay our population proportionate share of buying, maintaining and staffing UK embassies all over the world...but have to pay those Embassy officials (ie UK plc) over and above to promote Scottish products. ...so some money could be saved there as well. Then we pay our share for the maintenance of Government buildings in the UK, plus salaries/expenses/pensions..and subsidised food and drink for about 1400 Lords/MPs, plus civil servants...and that is some more useless expenditure we can avoid.
You could, if you liked (but you likely won't) include one-offs like the Jubilee Celebrations, the Olympics, the upgrading of the London sewage system, the ameliorating of water bills for punters in the South of England, the Channel Tunnel, HS1, the proposed HS2, that we pay/will pay our share of, which benefits only those furth of Scotland. We also pay our share of everything put into maintaining UK owned historical sites.....in fact we pay our share of everything spent in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, as well as Scotland.
Let's take the Commonwealth Games in Glasgow as illustrative of the Union's commitment to the "Union". Westminster is providing none of the funding for the games....though Scotland helped fund the Olympics, partly by our input into UK income, and partly by the Lottery receipts we lost because so much was sucked into the maw of the Olympics (and not even counting the loss in tourism) . The price tag for the 2014 Commonwealth Games is being picked up, 80 per cent by the Scottish Government and 20 per cent by the City of Glasgow...but swelp me..who says he is going to turn up and take as much credit as he can get...Cameron (and his Cabinet) in a "remember we are the UK, even if we had nothing to do with this" and is seemingly going to "monitor" and "assist"(as long as it doesn't cost money).
Some things we can identify with a bit of accuracy, some things even the UK number-crunchers can't separate out, and just do the population proportion thing, which in itself is unreliable. And in the case of oil revenues, we are reduced to assuming population (which will never wash) or geographical proportions...which will depend on negotiations (or an appeal to the appropriate UN entity if negotiations fail).
So, obviously to all but those with the meanest intelligence, we will plug that gap same way that every other country in the world does......simples! :roll:
I should think that you, as a Unionist, would be more worried about the performance of UK PLC, because it actually has in their hands, the tools to change economic systems and results to improve the UK situation(even if it is by targeting most of the population but pensioners and the well-off atm).....while Scotland does not (though Scotland has always balanced its budget under the SNP, such as the budget is). The last time a UK Government balanced a budget was 1999/2000..and since 1974, there has only been 8 years when the UK finances were not in deficit.
So which Government is the most economically incompetent?
If Scotland costs the uk 11 Billion a year why does the Tories,labour and the liberals all want Scotland to stay in the Union?
If Scotland costs the uk 11 Billion a year why does the Tories,labour and the liberals all want Scotland to stay in the Union?
IMHO They dont. But they think they should look like they do.
this is worth awatch answered alot of questions cameron saying we could survive on our own ,il be voting YES!!
http://youtu.be/buiXDbgnc4M
IMHO They dont. But they think they should look like they do. If the seats that the Labour Party can usually bank on from the Scottish electorate be removed from uk elections, would that not mean that the Tories would cruise into government easily but still they ain't keen on losing Scotland WHY?
because our money is going south they need us
equusdriving
26-Oct-13, 13:25
we could survive on our own,il be voting YES!!
well if your happy with just surviving, go for it:confused
well if your happy with just surviving, go for it:confused
I think thats exactly what a lot of probable YES voters are trying to do at the moment! And recently several old age pensioners failed at achieving this basic part of life through the choice of eating or heating.
I think thats exactly what a lot of probable YES voters are trying to do at the moment! And recently several old age pensioners failed at achieving this basic part of life through the choice of eating or heating.
The nationalist maths I liked were on Thursday 3 by-elections, 2 council, 1 Msp all lost to Labour
The nationalist maths I liked were on Thursday 3 by-elections, 2 council, 1 Msp all lost to Labour Great, looks like we will be staying with the same old politics for the rest of my life here in Scotland, being governed by a London parliament that only now and again the Scottish people have voted for where nothing really changes for us up here and they only seem to be concerned with south of England. So all you people who think "well I'm doing alright just now why would I want change anything" shame on you,why wouldn't you want a country that has its on government to plan for its future and doesn't have to send its young men to wars to die for somebody else's despicable underhand motives
equusdriving
26-Oct-13, 23:08
young men to wars to die for somebody else's despicable underhand motives is that the same proud patriotic young men who willingly signed up to fight for Queen and country? or has there been a return of national service that I haven't heard about?
Great, looks like we will be staying with the same old politics for the rest of my life here in Scotland, being governed by a London parliament that only now and again the Scottish people have voted for where nothing really changes for us up here and they only seem to be concerned with south of England. So all you people who think "well I'm doing alright just now why would I want change anything" shame on you,why wouldn't you want a country that has its on government to plan for its future and doesn't have to send its young men to wars to die for somebody else's despicable underhand motives
Precisely because they think "well I'm doing alright just now why would I want change anything"
Precisely because they think "well I'm doing alright just now why would I want change anything" Don't you think that is incredibly selfish and short sighted?
is that the same proud patriotic young men who willingly signed up to fight for Queen and country? or has there been a return of national service that I haven't heard about? I didn't mention patriotic or proud, I might have mention lacking in a lot of options in their communities for decent employment
Precisely because they think "well I'm doing alright just now why would I want change anything"
Der.... that is exactly why you wouldn't want to change anything. You people sound madder and madder every day.:eek:
Correct me if I'm wrong but we have at Holyrood a devolved parliament that has an SNP majority. I have repeatedly made requests to various officials, organisations for information (even under The Freedom of Information Act,) and have been either told that the figures are unavailable, not recorded or have been supplied with partial facts and figures or referred to reports where I am expected to find the information for myself ! Needless to say it is not there. This would seem to indicate that the present authority has little or no grip on it's finances which does not inspire confidence in any monetary figures they publish. We are also given no time table for the present union to be dissolved or at what cost. It could takes many years by which time the oil factor may be irrelevant . I think we are all well aware of the risks of counting our chickens before they are hatched.
Der.... that is exactly why you wouldn't want to change anything. You people sound madder and madder every day.:eek: Less of the Der Keep it civil,it's a discussion not a insult flinging argument ok
Less of the Der Keep it civil,it's a discussion not a insult flinging argument ok
Who says? :lol:
RagnarRocks
27-Oct-13, 20:40
The name calling seems to be resplendent this side of the border wasn't it Ole JR of Grangemouth infamy who said its not helpful when you're trying to invest 300 million and the other sides calling you names.
Ive seen a few things recently about Scotlands oil being the icing on a cake recently, that we are at break even without oil (19% of our tax take last year alone)
Any SNP fan boys want to shed light on this? http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2011/06/21144516/7
If you cant be bothered reading, I will summarise - We get out way more than we pay in, around 6bn in 2009, with record oil revenues, but up to 12.5bn in 2010.
Any takers? Whats your point weezle, all the political parties agree on one point. Scotland could very well manage financially as an Independent Nation.
Surferbill
28-Oct-13, 14:02
http://oljefondet.no/#/forside
C (http://oljefondet.no/#/forside)heck this out i wonder how the Noggies manage it , this is just their fund from some off their extra cash. Look how fast it is ticking up?
I work on the Noggie side and on our payslips we do have a small deduction every month towards the fund so the workers do contribute to it although not much.
The way i see we are never going to get any staight answers, it will just be claim and counter claim from both sides manipulating the figures.
For me Independence is about much more than Money, i am one of these braveheart types who thinks with his heart and would just love Scotland to be its own proper independent country making its own decisions having nothing to do with London.
Vote with your aspirations and not with your fears
weezer 316
28-Oct-13, 17:08
Whats your point weezle, all the political parties agree on one point. Scotland could very well manage financially as an Independent Nation.
Christ.
We woudlnt be north korea, no one says we would. The point is exactly what I wrote. How do we bridge the income gap. We get out mroe than we pay in, that unless we fund those services the same there will be cuts. The SNP simply havent explained how we will do this, instead they talk about an oil fund, money thats already beig spent elsewhere and will further but is in the red.
All they need to do is be honest. If it loses the argument then so be it, but they wont even say how we will bridge this gap. Infact they pretend it doenst exist despite their economic data (like the link I provieded) showing it.
If they cant answer this (amongst other things) its a no from me.
I want to understand how nationalists reconcile this in their head.
weezer 316
28-Oct-13, 17:20
http://oljefondet.no/#/forside
C (http://oljefondet.no/#/forside)heck this out i wonder how the Noggies manage it , this is just their fund from some off their extra cash. Look how fast it is ticking up?
I work on the Noggie side and on our payslips we do have a small deduction every month towards the fund so the workers do contribute to it although not much.
The way i see we are never going to get any staight answers, it will just be claim and counter claim from both sides manipulating the figures.
For me Independence is about much more than Money, i am one of these braveheart types who thinks with his heart and would just love Scotland to be its own proper independent country making its own decisions having nothing to do with London.
Vote with your aspirations and not with your fears
Norway is a special case. If you working there you know it. It takes high taxes to achieve what they have, and public trust in the govt to do it. They also have far more oil and gas than we do.
If the SNP would lay out a way for us to be like them or Denmark, I would vote yes no bother. They havent. We have basic questions like the one I asked being utterly ignored. They also need to change their position on currency and start our own as what they outline is untenable for the same reason we dont want to join the Euro. I know taxes woul need to rise. If they just admitted it (lying make it even worse) then it would be a start.
The figures are all based on the U.K. government handling Scotlands income. A Scottish Government would have different criteria, purely Scottish and would put Scotlands interests first.
Would you hand your income to your neighbour and let him/her handle your affairs? or would you like to be grown up and handle your own affairs in your own interest?
Correct me if I'm wrong but we have at Holyrood a devolved parliament that has an SNP majority. I have repeatedly made requests to various officials, organisations for information (even under The Freedom of Information Act,) and have been either told that the figures are unavailable, not recorded or have been supplied with partial facts and figures or referred to reports where I am expected to find the information for myself ! Needless to say it is not there. This would seem to indicate that the present authority has little or no grip on it's finances which does not inspire confidence in any monetary figures they publish. We are also given no time table for the present union to be dissolved or at what cost. It could takes many years by which time the oil factor may be irrelevant . I think we are all well aware of the risks of counting our chickens before they are hatched.
Information about what? Why would you expect to have a Government lackey, at the cost of about £600 a throw to the taxpayer for each FOI response in cases where it is possible to get the information yourself waste our money? I'd call that having a grip on its finances! :)
J have been requesting costs within The NHS with a view to money saving but apart from ascertaining one figure of £3,000.000 that is spent on average per annum remunerating patients travelling to Raigmore from Caithness none of the others are available. I would have no problem if the figures were available for me to access myself with regard to ambulances, emergency flights, locums. week end cover for GPs etc. It would appear that you have either misread or misinterpreted my post or you are being either deliberately provocative or naïve. If you don't believe me, I have a file that you are welcome to peruse and several web sites that you too are welcome to spend hours and even days working your way through. If we cannot obtain such information perhaps you can explain how we are to accept figures that cannot be verified or challenged?
orkneycadian
18-Nov-13, 19:45
So - According to the top headline on Radio Scotland at 6, the Institute of Fiscal Studies has analysed Scotlands books, and whatever business plan we have for independence, and have concluded that whilst oil can keep us in a manner better than England and the rest of the UK could expect, that will be short lived, and we will soon thereafter have a poorer standard of living, VAT might be as high as 28% and some other figures, I can't remember which exactly, would be 4 times worse in Scotland than they will be in the rest of the former UK.
As well as the decline in oil revenues, a faster ageing population (due to demographics as opposed to deep fried mars bars....) will bring about a faster decline in our 'wealth' (assume that means not how much money we have, but the debt we don't have....) of an independent Scotland.
Has all that not already been mentioned on here?
So - According to the top headline on Radio Scotland at 6, the Institute of Fiscal Studies has analysed Scotlands books, and whatever business plan we have for independence, and have concluded that whilst oil can keep us in a manner better than England and the rest of the UK could expect, that will be short lived, and we will soon thereafter have a poorer standard of living, VAT might be as high as 28% and some other figures, I can't remember which exactly, would be 4 times worse in Scotland than they will be in the rest of the former UK.
As well as the decline in oil revenues, a faster ageing population (due to demographics as opposed to deep fried mars bars....) will bring about a faster decline in our 'wealth' (assume that means not how much money we have, but the debt we don't have....) of an independent Scotland.
Has all that not already been mentioned on here?
The IFS is a right wing think tank, set up by a Labour government in the 1960s, mostly funded by Westminster(ie us)...and by us doubly, as it is also funded by the BBC through our TV licences. Only in the UK (or the USA) could you say a publicly funded body is independent of the public bodies which fund them.:roll:.......one of which is the Government and the other of which is itself funded by the Government......far less blow them up as "respected independent" authorities and get the brain dead to believe them! :roll: They are as independent as a teenager reliant on mam and dad for pocket money, the roof over their head and their food. I assume you are aware that the IFS want Corporation Tax abolished and VAT to be increased so the rich get richer and the already poor get even poorer....which flags up their current Tory credentials....but if Labour gets in next time round, they will, I suspect, alter their focus...even if only by the small shade necessary to differentiate the policies of their new masters from those of their old.)
In fact, they're kinda like, in that respect, the other bastion of "respected independent" thought, the OBR, (a Tory produced " independent paid for by us" public entity).....many of whose figures have been used in the report.....and which, according to the head of the "Better Together Campaign", Alistair Darling......"There were already serious questions about the independence of the Office of Budget Responsibility," Mr Darling said. "Now its very credibility is at stake." According to the OBR themselves...It acknowledges, however, that it may also have erred in calculations of the growth damage caused by spending cuts and tax increases. "Along with many forecasters we significantly overestimated economic growth in the past two years. This likely reflected several factors, including the impact of stubborn inflation on real consumer spending, deteriorating export markets on net trade, impaired credit conditions, euro area anxiety and demand uncertainty on business investment. Fiscal consolidation may also have done more to slow growth than we assumed.". So not only are they biased in favour of the Government..they are also inaccurate and incompetent.
Now it is blatantly obvious to even the meanest intelligence, when you read the report (which I assume you have) that they are dancing to Westminster's tune (as are the Unionist media) as they assume that an Independent Scotland will follow all the tax and spending plans of the UK today and going forward (as far as they have been flagged up so far). Now, donning your sensible hat....why would we need Independence if we intended to do what the UK does re tax and spending..in fact why would we have ever even needed devolution if that option sat well with us?
Until negotiations are over, NOBODY knows what will happen....not the UK Government, not the Scottish Government and absolutely not the pro-Unionist talking heads wheeled out with such regular monotony to try to scare the crap out of the easily scared. There is a lot to talk about, both with the rUK and International entities. Much as there is during a divorce...there is lots of debt to apportion, lots of assets to apportion, and lots of decisions to be made...hopefully without recourse to (International) Law......but until that process has been done, there is no certainty on which to make economic forecasts that anyone can take as "facts".
Which part of the liberal usage of words like may, suggest, assumes, if, estimates, projected and other such words indicating uncertainty in the report would encourage anyone with a grasp of the English language to assume they should be read as will, must, definite and other such words indicating factual incontrovertible input?
The immigration thing, for example.......why would anyone assume that because overcrowded England is trying to reduce immigration, underpopulated Scotland will do the same...and nobody in their right minds would want to come here? And why assume that those immigrants who do arrive will be barren? Why would anyone assume that the majority of our working age citizens will leave asap to work elsewhere, if we can produce policies to encourage them to stay? And why would anyone assume that UK Government policies which will be enacted until 2016 won't kill off large swathes of our aging population over the next three winters? :roll:
I'm of the opinion that politics are as much a leap of faith as any religion...and you either believe the forecasts of the various parties....or you don't...or alternatively you look at what is......and think that maybe it could be better..........or worse! But in the end, you don't predicate your vote on what is going to be best for you as an individual right now..unless you are extremely selfish.
I am a reasonably comfortably off pensioner (though a pensioner with small needs over basic living expenses...no car, no foreign holidays, no sitting around the house in a t-shirt in winter, etc) ....and tbh, staying in the Union would probably suit me personally.....as I know that, within the Union, I'd probably have much the same income going forward as I have now, maybe even slightly more...but I also know that I have four grandchildren, three working age, only one of which has a real full-time job with prospects and one who is still in education....and a great grandchild...and all of them are under 25, so will be hit drastically by the latest brain-fart proposed by the UK Government, to add to all the brain-farts they have come up with to ensure the ordinary joe punter bears the blame/consequences for the banker's activities while allowing the bankers to carry on as before, gathering bonuses and high salaries for failure.....and the wealthy to get tax cuts.
Nothing in this world comes without a price....and I look at the future, much as all those think tanks do.....but I do it not based on, and extrapolated from, what is now, as if our future was always to be controlled by future UK policies...but as a blank page on which we can write our future for ourselves.......and I really do think we can do better for all our citizens than the Union has done in the past 306 years for some of our citizens.
RagnarRocks
20-Nov-13, 09:00
If Scotland costs the uk 11 Billion a year why does the Tories,labour and the liberals all want Scotland to stay in the Union?The Tories probably don't as without Scotland constantly voting more socialist they would be pretty much assured to remain in power but that's not something they would publicise
It makes little difference to the Tories which way Scotland votes - or to anyone else actually as The results for every general election bar three since the war would have been the same even if you removed the Scottish votes. The only difference it made in the three exceptions were to force a hung parliament.
the IFS report was interesting - until you read it and realised that their spending projections assume that nothing at all changes after Independence - that Scotland STILL pays for the High speed rail link, STILL contributes£3billion+ to defence, STILL Spends money on mitigating the effects of welfare reform being implemented by a government in what will be by then another country.The oil forecasts take no account of the new fields including the one in Shetland coming online; it uses the lowest possible estimate which actually is at odds with the Governments own experts to the tune of something like £40 a barrel.
So to summarise - the IFS report shows where Scotland would be if it doesnt take decisions to change anything, doesnt have ANY policies which increase growth and investment, doesnt use ANY of the levers to change its policies from those it has now and basically therefore shows what will happen if everything stays the same. It seems that it shows what will happen if Scotland isnt independent at all!
I get cross with this sort of thing - if these organisations looked at policies being suggested by the SNP and the Greens and costed them based on these suggestions then we might actuallty be getting somewhere but to produce a report which assumes that in an Independent Scotland, nothing, not spending, not oil, not policies, not taxation, not benefits, not anything at all will change just shortchanges everyone - those voting YES, voting NO and those who have still to make their minds up.
Which policies squidge? The ones that say could, might, maybe? When a Holyrood Minister of Finance speaks and shows a blatant disregard for even basic economic laws . I start getting worried.
Which policies squidge? The ones that say could, might, maybe? When a Holyrood Minister of Finance speaks and shows a blatant disregard for even basic economic laws . I start getting worried.
Totally agree Lizz, a Minister of Finance saying, if we vote yes, if the Economic Growth rises by 1%, we will all be rolling in money, (he cannot tell us what currency that will be yet). Those are big IF's I will stick with my NO vote.
Which policies squidge? The ones that say could, might, maybe? When a Holyrood Minister of Finance speaks and shows a blatant disregard for even basic economic laws . I start getting worried.
Well, excuse me....but when the exact same thing applies to everything said by all UK politicians and their think tanks as amply illustrated by the IFS report....how come so many of you so readily believe a government which has us £1+ trilliion in debt, and rising and hasn't hit an economic target yet....when our Holyrood Minister of Finance is at least capable of balancing the pocket money we get from ourselves via Westminster?
All policies say could might and maybe Lizz because in order for policies to be in place there has to be an election first.
There is no bigger could might and maybe that the IFS report in the first place. The No campaign is all about coulds woulds and shoulds, ifs and maybes - Scotland could have greater powers if........ Scotland could find itself struggliing in isolation and Scotland might not be able to use the pound if George Osborne stamps his feet and whinges a bit more.
Without an election there are no policies or plans. There is a white paper being published, we saw SNP plans for the economy, we saw the Greens discussing their policies on Friday - there is plenty of REAL information out there if you look. The IFS could have used this, but no - it used information based on utterly no changes, nothing different nothing that has been put out there already - maybe you ought to ask yourself why?
I would suggest that it might be because IF they used the information that those supporting the YES campaign have offered about the changes they have said they WILL make or might make or could make then it would have shown that Independence WILL work and it will work BETTER than leaving everything just the way it is.
rob murray
20-Nov-13, 17:23
If Scotland goes it alone, then we will have to compete with our larger neighbour who will drift further to the right, with workers rights eroded, pay and conditions eroded, benefits cut more, pricing people into work, cut to the quick we would be uncompetitive in many areas of economic activity so jobs will go south where wages etc will be cheaper. An economic fact !
orkneycadian
20-Nov-13, 22:44
So, if the IFS is talking rubbish, how come point 21 in the following link....
http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/parliamentarybusiness/CurrentCommittees/59613.aspx
(http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/parliamentarybusiness/CurrentCommittees/59613.aspx)
and the associated graph, on a Scottish Parliament website, agrees that the percentage of Scotlands population over 75 is expected to increase more than most European countries?
Thats what the IFS said too.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.