Nationalist maths

[Oddquine]

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!

[Kenn]

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]

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?

[Oddquine]

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........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! 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?

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]

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

[squidge]

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.

[Kenn]

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.

[golach]

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.

[Oddquine]

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?

[squidge]

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]

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]

So, if the IFS is talking rubbish, how come point 21 in the following link....

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.