You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
ninfan - Member
...Scotland remains a subsidy junkie (so does England, but its right wing nutters like me that would like to see that changed rather than continue like the utopians)
I must be a right wing nutter too then seeing as I believe debt should only be used for productive purposes and not to fund consumption. It's basic good housekeeping. Hey Ninfan and I agree on something!
Oh, and I've been called a Socialist and a Nationalist too. Mmmm, right wing nutter, nationalist and socialist, I've got a brown shirt somewhere. Should I be trimming my moustache and practising strange marches?
Or burning books - but hardly anyone buys them these days.
I know! I'll go around deleting books on people's Kindles. 🙂
(Sorry, crap humour - just been out for a ride and been amusing myself thinking of some of the more interesting assertions on this thread. Doesn't sound so funny when I'm off the bike.)
Hell here's a revolutionary idea, spend some of the oil wealth on diversification rather than tax breaks.
Excuse what may sound a rude question (it isn't meant to be) but do you really think that is how oil has been spent ie, just on tax breaks? I'm intrigued.
Oh and you do know that the fiscal commission has been clear that NS Oil revenues will be needed to fund public services and reduce borrowing. It's lovely to talk about an oil fund but you do have to start running a surplus first. And remind me how often and how consistently Scotland has managed that?
more or less, aye.teamhurtmore - Member
Hell here's a revolutionary idea, spend some of the oil wealth on diversification rather than tax breaks.
Excuse what may sound a rude question (it isn't meant to be) but do you really think that is how oil has been spent ie, just on tax breaks? I'm intrigued.
So it turns out that STV repeatedly tried to get Cameron to participate in a debate programme with undecided voters - Cameron refused to do a full programme and wanted to dictate the terms of the debate. Then he accused STV of "running away":
I'm not sure it's a brilliant strategy to annoy one of the two main Scottish broadcasters 2 weeks before the referendum 😉
Excuse what may sound a rude question (it isn't meant to be) but do you really think that is how oil has been spent ie, just on tax breaks? I'm intrigued.
It wasn't just spent on tax breaks - a lot of it went on unemployment benefits for all the people put out of work when the mines closed, when the shipyards closed, when the steel plants closed, when the factories closed,...
North Seal Oil revenues were spent pro-rata on everything.
For you 2 the argument ends on the 19th of september, for us up here it doesn't. After that the campaign for government begins.
@seosam - I don't agree, if Scotland votes Yes the arguments will intensify for "us" from the day of the vote until the exit is concluded in 2016 or most likely beyond. I expect the issue will be a factor in the 2015 election with parties setting out in their manifestos how they will handle Scotland's exit.
I am afraid in the the event of a Yes vote this is going to be an ongoing PITA for 2-3 years.
I know. I was meaning the discussion about the make up of the Scottish government ends for you and begins for us in earnest.
I'm well aware an IS has further implications out with scotlans borders. Beyond the negotiations that's not really my concern until interests merge.
North Seal Oil revenues were spent pro-rata on everything.
Are those North Grey Seals or North Harbour Seals? 😀
Hell here's a revolutionary idea, spend some of the oil wealth ondiversification rather than tax breaks.
If only [s]the SNP[/s] any of the major parties agreed with you. Sadly they feel they need that money to balance the books. Sadly they're right - I know you don't like numbers but the reason for that is in any of the recently posted links about Scotland's balance of payments, and they're not difficult numbers.
Though it appears its likely to be even more impossible to get you to take this in than anybody else, given your recent posts showing that you're totally reliant on unspecified dreams for making your choice.
I was meaning the discussion about the make up of the Scottish government ends for you and begins for us in earnest.
When are the next elections due ? I would imagine as AS if First Minister he's not going to jeopardise that position by calling an election, he's going to focus on positioning himself as Scotland's champion in the negotiations and try and ensure all the credit goes to the SNP. I suspect discussions as to the make up of Scotland's government won't take place until after independence is completed. No ?
Oil was spent on a wide provision of public services across the UK. It's very misleading to even try to suggest that it just went into tax cuts.
If you want to get cross though think about public sector pensions - you know where all that money went because all parties preferred dodgy accounting to building up pension assets. No surprise that no one has mentioned that even though the DO present fairy tales on the future of pensions.
Sorting out the buggers muddle that is pensions will take an age alone.
I get the numbers, they aren't difficult. Scotland will start with a deficit and debt. Beyond that you are just speculating and talking as much fantasy as anyone.aracer - Member
Hell here's a revolutionary idea, spend some of the oil wealth ondiversification rather than breaks.
If only the SNP any of the major parties agreed with you. Sadly they feel they need that money to balance the books. Sadly they're right - I know you don't like numbers but the reason for that is in any of the recently posted links about Scotland's balance of payments, and they're not difficult numbers.Though it appears its likely to be even more impossible to get you to take this in than anybody else, given your recent posts showing that you're totally reliant on unspecified dreams for making your choice.
You seem to have a belief that the people of Scotland can't manage. I do, I also have a further belief that the people of Scotland will able to build a society that reflect the peoples wishes.
The specifics are irrelevant to me until campaigning begins, and the real political make up of Scotland starts to show itself. We cannot know the whole picture when half the parties refuse to put forward a vision for an independent Scotland.
Get the no side to present a vision. Along with other parties that may form and then we can have a balanced discussion.
Until then its just SNP bashing, which I don't really disagree with. But you are wanting to have a discussion that we can't have until we've decided there will be an independent Scotland.
a lot of it went on unemployment benefits for all the people put out of work when the loss making mines closed, when the loss making shipyards closed, when the loss making steel plants closed, when the loss making factories closed,...
FTFY,HTH!
Very few people are saying Scotland can't manage, that's clearly absurd although there will be major ST disruption. The question is far more (1) what structure in in Scotland's best interests and (2) how much of the yS proposals are BS. The answers to both are very easy. NO (ie vote NO), MOST.
A vision is easy - a very successful union works despite all the negativity (see what I did there?). The fact that yS want a CU is the clearest example of the fact that everyone knows this. The structures are in place combined with relatively high levels of devolved power (a lot still unused). Scotland with a NO vote will be in one of the best placed positions anywhere in the UK (time for some honesty.) And you want to throw that all in for a risky vanity project for the DO.
Sorry, but there are also some truisms. We have all leveraged out futures to the hilt. Borrowing means bringing consumption forward and delaying payment. The financial crisis was the peak of that extended process of an economic mirage based largely on leverage (debt). At some stage, that pattern has to be reversed (that time is now) and there is bugger all that any politician can do about that other than default!! But we are not Argentina!
The yS vision is a pipe dream. The same challenges face us all in the developed world. The best structure in which to face those challenges is the wider UK. That offers the best prospects for all. It really is very simple.
Iget the numbers,they aren't difficult. Scotland will start with a deficit and debt. Beyond that you are just speculating and talking as much fantasy as anyone.
The numbers also show that without the oil money the deficit would be unsustainably huge. You can't just separate it out and suggest spending some of it on something else (an oil fund, diversification) as its part of the overall budget for Scotland to balancethe books. As I wrote a few hundred pages ago, there is nothing magic about the oil money - you might as well have a VAT fund or spend corporation tax on diversification. No speculation or fantasy there - it's only your refusal to look at this properly because you're waiting for some party to come up with magic policies which avoid the economic reality which makes you think that.
The specifics are irrelevant to me until campaigning begins
So what is the point of you participating in this thread discussing the specifics? Clearly the currency is an irrelevance, SNP policy is an irrelevance, even the BOD is an irrelevance. It's all about hope, hope that somebody can defy economic reality.
It's going to be fascinating to revisit this thread in 5 years time - or whenever Wales makes its bid for independence.
Wales won't, unless the option is some kind of commonwealth. We know we don't have the economy. Polls say 5-10% in favour.
I believe debt should only be used for productive purposes and not to fund consumption
Is consumption not a productive purpose then?
molgrips - Member
Wales won't, unless the option is some kind of commonwealth. We know we don't have the economy. Polls say 5-10% in favour.
Don't believe polls. All the polls I have seen for Scottish independence have always proven to be, shall we say "extremely conservative" after the fact.
And don't underestimate the value of what Wales has. Water is going to be like gold soon. There's plenty other things I can think of, but I'm sure you would know better examples.
molgrips - Member
"I believe debt should only be used for productive purposes and not to fund consumption"
Is consumption not a productive purpose then?
Not in my opinion. Borrowing should only be to acquire assets that will produce income. If you can't produce enough income of a debt to service it, it's going to bite you in the bum eventually (like Greece).
Which is possibly why the UK has had to go cap in hand more than once in my lifetime to the international financiers.
[url=
is the question bbc reported so wrongly[/url]
Clearly refers to a debate with undecided voters.
Epic, you are in for a shock pal. Consumption represents 60% of aggregate demand in the UK, by far and away the biggest driver. Take Scotland economy and you have major industries eg financial services (funding consumption via debt), drinks (consumption) tourism (ditto) etc....so are you proposing no debt to finance any of these drivers? Don't stand for politics if you are as you won't make many friends.
You must be very old if you can remember the UK going cap in hand more than once to international financiers - have you discovered immortality?
But funny that you should mention international financiers since wee eck needs to consider when he is going to stop pissing them off.
I read some of Ben's and Ninfan's posts about Scotland's revenue and expenditure and decided to do a bit of digging.
2012 - 2013
Expenditure = 9.3%
revenue = 9.1
2011 - 2012
Expenditure = 9.3%
revenue = 9.9%
2010 - 2011
Expenditure = 9.3%
revenue = 9.6%
2009 - 2010
Expenditure = 9.3%
revenue = 9.4 %
2008 - 2009
Expenditure = 9.4%
revenue = 10.3 %
2007 - 2008
Expenditure = 9.6%
revenue = 9.5 %
2006 - 2007
Expenditure = 9.6%
revenue = 9.6%
Average expenditure = 9.4%
Average revenue = 9.6%
So it would seem that over 7 years Scotland barely contributes to the UK at all. So after independence Scotland would be looking to get only 0.2% of UK assets. Let me guess iScotland will now be arguing for a per capita based amount of assets?
Brilliant commentary here. Balanced and articulate and thankfully free of the manic anger that clouds so much of the discussions around the referendum
http://mikeymacintosh.blogspot.co.uk/2014/08/referendummed-out.html?m=1
Thanks for posting bob, interesting read. Debunks most of the BS and surprise, surprise an articulate balanced argument comes to the obvious conclusion.
Average expenditure = 9.4%
Average revenue = 9.6%So it would seem that over 7 years Scotland barely contributes to the UK at all. So after independence Scotland would be looking to get only 0.2% of UK assets.
Er, I think your calculator is broken. You seem to think that, if Scotland only contributes 0.2% more than it receives, it should only get 0.2% of assets. But by that argument the rest of the UK contributes 0.2% less than it receives, so should get minus 0.2% of the assets.
In other words, nonsense 😉
AS trying to wriggle round the Goldman Sachs report today sums it up, especially trying to bully the reporter. No wonder that word trips so easily off his tongue! He knows all about bullying.
Guys try not mixing flow/income data with stock/balance sheet data. There's enough muddying the waters from yS to satisfy even the driest hippo already.
Scotland could be sitting on more than double the amount of oil and gas reserves currently predicted, a new independent industry investigation has found.
Another blow for the Yes vote there 😉
- An oil fund is exactly what's needed to balance out fluctuations like this. We'll only get an oil fund with independence.
Ben, that's not what an oil fund does! it's not for smoothing tax revenue over an economic cycle, it's for long term investment. that's *different*.
and you still haven't worked out what current expenditure you're going to cut in order to put money into the oil fund.
and you still haven't worked out whether the fund should be making money for the future or should be "investing in diversification" or other nice things.
"And you still haven't...."
Could be the yS motto really!
Yet the area – off the west coast of Scotland and Outer Hebrides and Shetland –has remained largely untapped due to deep waters and difficult geological conditions.
And with a wave of Alex's magic wand 😆
And we are back to two pages of "you can't afford it." We got a real insight into why zulu,jambalaya,TMA et all are worried about the vote. The resources that you need to support the South;you don't have them,we do. Of course,as has been suggested by either jambalaya or Zulu( why did he change his user name? You could just annexe the bits of Scotland you want.
It's not that we can't afford it, it's that we're not capable of doing it ourselves because ekkonomiks iz diffikult. Like a small child who's rich grandparent dies, we need someone responsible to look after our wealth for us, carefully handing it back to us when we can prove we're responsible.
I am paraphrasing slightly 😉
Anyway, don't worry, Ed Milliband is coming to save the union 😀
Oh, and in some more Lovebombing, Bob Geldof says that we're all better staying as one country, though he doesn't want Ireland to rejoin the UK, and he seems to think saying f*** a lot makes up for actually trying to understand the issues.
Ive just worked out that the guy in the audience the other night, shaking his head............was Ben! 😯
Ah, we're back to personal insults, good stuff 😉
There's a poll on the main page now....
You can take it as an anti-Scottish viewpoint of the English if you like Ben, but there are plenty of us inside the country who don't think the numbers and policies add up.It's not that we can't afford it, it's that we're not capable of doing it ourselves because ekkonomiks iz diffikult. Like a small child who's rich grandparent dies, we need someone responsible to look after our wealth for us, carefully handing it back to us when we can prove we're responsible
good read by monbiot?!?
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/02/scots-independence-england-scotland
also
[img] 
?oh=3f3e5df76e6ff40cdbada682c762beb3&oe=54772D43&__gda__=1417219579_347aa2677a0c7a54b1e043881c740995[/img]
Don't you see any contradiction?oldbloke - Member
You can take it as an anti-Scottish viewpoint of the English if you like Ben, but there are plenty of us inside the country who don't think the numbers and policies add up.
"Yes of course Scotland can go it alone" Then saying "the numbers don't match up"...
Pointing this out is apparently anti english? 😐
If I thought for a minute that the driving factor behind IS was anti Englishness, I wouldn't vote for it.
You can take it as an anti-Scottish viewpoint of the English if you like Ben, but there are plenty of us inside the country who don't think the numbers and policies add up.
This isn't about Scottish vs English. And we're not voting for a policy, we're voting for the ability to decide our own policies.
Ben's quote was clearly directed at those outside Scotland."Yes of course Scotland can go it alone" Then saying "the number don't match up" suggests that we can't!Pointing this out is apparently anti english?
Whether or not we can go it alone and whether the numbers add up or not are two different issues.
The ability to go it alone does not in any way define the quality of life we'd have. Hell, even Zimbabwe can go it alone.
But the numbers adding up or not is very much about whether or not the vision presented by the Scottish Government in the white paper is deliverable. It has had so many holes shot in it since the day of publication that it clearly isn't.
And before you say again "we're not always destined to have the SNP in charge" that's the manifesto of the guys doing the negotiating for the structure of independence. They will have more impact on the future of the country through that process than the generation of governments which follow.
Ben's quote was clearly directed at those outside Scotland.
My quote was about the Westminster elite of whatever nationality - England has it worse, you're not even trusted with your own parliament (though when asked you didn't want one).
Another blow for the Yes vote there
A report by a recruitment agency?
If you really want to think about the future of a Scottish economy, think beyond oil, maybe even forget about it, even salmond says its just a bonus and not a backbone of an economy.
England has it worse, you're not even trusted with your own parliament (though when asked you didn't want one).
Typical Anglo-centricism: Why would we want a national parliament, we've already got one!
And we're not voting for a policy, we're voting for the ability to decide our own policies.
This can be repeated but it is simply untrue. You have two options
(1) greater power to implement policies - NO (ironically)
(2) hand over all major policy instruments to a foreign county - YES (again ironically)
There is a third one of course - your aspiration - but yS does not want that. I accept that this is counter-intuitive but the truth often is especially when politicians are deliberately muddying the water.
duckman - Member
And we are back to two pages of "you can't afford it." We got a real insight into why zulu,jambalaya,TMA et all are worried about the vote.
Not at all ducks - just lifting the "veil of ignorance" (to mis-quote Rawls). To build up a SWF you need to be running a surplus ie revenues > expenditure. Scotland typical runs deficits of around 3% of GDP plus and the DO has plans to reduce taxes while increasing spending. Leaving aside the obvious flaw in that, to suggest that this is compatible with creating an oil fund is simple DECEIT. You need to create a surplus to transfer money into the fund. It really is very simple.
Of course in la la land you can have it all apparently!
And we're not voting for a policy,
The existence of a large document titled 'Scotlands future' points very much towards the fact that you [b]are[/b] voting for quite specific policies, or did you forget hearing Alex repeatedly say that a yes vote gave him a [i]mandate[/i]?
Otherwise the correct course of action would be to call a Scottish election immediately after a Yes vote!
Whenever I hear mandate am I the only person who thinks of this?
The pish being spouted about the West Coast untapped oil fields and 'reports' from a recruitment agency (oil and Gas people) are truly worrying if/when people believe that.
plans to reduce taxes while increasing spending
It's not a branch of economics that I buy into but it's not impossible to decrease taxes and increase revenue and therefore spending.
Has anyone sat and worked out how big the deficit/surplus would be if all or even some of the Whitepaper policies were implemented? How big the savings on defence spending etc would be?
The no camp are like a bunch of school teachers wagging their finger, you'll never amount to anything son! 😆
Good tactic, which generally illicts a f* you response. Carry on! 
bigjim - MemberA report by a recruitment agency?
A report [i]commissioned[/i] by a recruitment agency. But if you look at the sources it's far more convincing than that (they include the UK government 😉 )
good read by monbiot?!?
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/02/scots-independence-england-scotland
I was going to post that too. It's a very good way to put the argument I thought. Especially the point about the same arguments currently being used by the right to justify a euro exit being applicable to the Scottish decision.
I notice that the new scaremongering from the media is that the general election will have to be delayed. No doubt next week it will be power cuts and food shortages...
[url= http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/03/calls-to-postpone-uk-general-election-scots-independence ]http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/03/calls-to-postpone-uk-general-election-scots-independence[/url]
That Guardian article is interesting is several ways. We have the leader of the Scottish Tories saying that they are on course to lose the next general election, saying that because she thinks it might help the No side. And we have a veteran Tory MP giving a good insight into the No mindset when he says that a Yes vote would be "a national humiliation of catastrophic proportions".
The no camp are like a bunch of school teachers wagging their finger, you'll never amount to anything son!
Good tactic, which generally illicts a f* you response. Carry on!
between that and the approaching economic DOOM, at least we can expect some brilliant punk records.
The old school across from my shop is being demolished, and today this appeared:
[url= https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5553/15134219531_b9263415d5_b.jp g" target="_blank">https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5553/15134219531_b9263415d5_b.jp g"/> [/img][/url][url= https://flic.kr/p/p4mQcv ]Springbank School - Hope not Fear[/url] by [url= https://www.flickr.com/people/10954782@N00/ ]Ben Cooper[/url], on Flickr
😀
That's a beautiful building to demolish..
mm, does seem a waste.molgrips - Member
That's a beautiful building to demolish..
Ben
Aren't you know for wandering around old empty abandoned buildings........? 😆
Aye, it's a lovely building - I got some pictures from inside a couple of weeks ago:
http://catchingphotons.co.uk/blog/miscellaneous/springbank-public-school/
Sadly Glasgow is full of old schools like this, with no money to look after them and no interest from anyone in redeveloping them.
Sadly Glasgow is full of old schools like this, with no money to look after them and no interest from anyone in redeveloping them.
Shame to destroy your heritage, mind you the Scots seem to have lost the ability to learn from history .... 😉
Glasgow has always been far too keen to tear down old buildings and build new ones. Or were you talking about something else? 😉
@kimbers, very good.
@ben, the council should put preservation orders on them and convert into social housing using public money. Congrats on abandoning "right to buy" btw, a good move.
The UK election is not going to get delayed. It will either take place with Scotland excluded (after passing some specific legislation and this is my preferred scenario) or it will take place with Scottish MPs dropping out from voting once Independence is concluded.
...while the City now appears to have woken up to the possibility of a Yes victory, it’s not uncertainty over Scotland’s future that’s troubling them.Tucked away in the Financial Times’ report earlier in the week was the giveaway. “Currency investors” would apparently be “particularly concerned by the UK’s persistent current account deficit if this were no longer offset by North Sea oil revenues.”
http://www.neweconomics.org/blog/entry/scottish-independence-uk-dependency
Well worth a read...
@ben, the council should put preservation orders on them and convert into social housing using public money.
Yes, well that's Glasgow CC for you - easier to let them rot away and be demolished than come up with creative uses for them. There's another one just up the road, [url= http://catchingphotons.co.uk/blog/miscellaneous/shakespeare-street-school/ ]Shakespeare Street School[/url], which they've been trying to sell for years.
Bugger all the economic data! There's no need to carefully count or assess long reports.
I just watched the future deputy leader of the next coalition* govt being interviewed in the USA.
Mr Farage is dead keen to strip away much of Scotland's share of the UK govt's expenditure. That of course, will only be possible if we vote No.
Now seeing as Boris (next PM) is saying much the same, I very much doubt that Scotland's one and only Tory MP is going to be able to reverse this trend.
So it looks like a No vote will lead to even worse consequences than the doom foretold for us if we go independent.
Accept the lesser doom, vote Yes!
------------------
*Tory/UKIP alliance.
So.. with the oil then.. isn't it being extracted by private companies? What revenue does the govt get? And surely some of the companies involved with extraction and refining are British?
Have we "done" home page STW poll ? Rough stats based on Scot v non Scot. Seems fair representation to me
Scots
No 55%, Yes 45% (for scots, so not so far from real polls)
Non Scots
No 55%
Yes 18%
don't know/care 27%
I think those North of the border should thank Cameron as these results would suggests most of the UK electorate wouldn't be in favour of an iS and thus would probably not have granted a referendum.
I wonder how many 'undecideds' and 'nos' would rethink their position, if the question on the 18th was rephrased, "Should Scotland be an independent country from a Tory/UKIP coalition, led by Boris and Nige?"
Bugger all the economic data! There's no need to carefully count or assess long reports.I just watched the future deputy leader of the next coalition* govt being interviewed in the USA.
Mr Farage is dead keen to strip away much of Scotland's share of the UK govt's expenditure. That of course, will only be possible if we vote No.
Now seeing as Boris (next PM) is saying much the same, I very much doubt that Scotland's one and only Tory MP is going to be able to reverse this trend.
So it looks like a No vote will lead to even worse consequences than the doom foretold for us if we go independent.
Accept the lesser doom, vote Yes!
vote yes for project feart
@molgrips, yes that's right the government typically just takes a cut (10%?) plus sells the upfront licence/mineral rights (this is highly dependent on how difficult the oil is to extract). In tin pot countries they then nationalise the oil field once the foreign company has finished building all the infrastructure, so that's an option for Scotland then 😉
Scots
No 55%, Yes 45%
Not on this thread though 🙂
I wonder how many 'undecideds' and 'nos' would rethink their position, if the question on the 18th was rephrased, "Should Scotland be an independent country from a Tory/UKIP coalition, led by Boris and Nige?"
Wait, you can't have it both ways! You can't deflect criticism of Salmond by saying 'oh it's not about the current politicians' then stir up yes sentiment by quoting the current politicians!
You can't deflect criticism of Salmond by saying 'oh it's not about the current politicians' then stir up yes sentiment by quoting the current politicians!
Sure you can - the current political system brought us the politicians we've got. We're voting for a new political system, not for any particular politicians.
Why does the Home Page poll count Scottish people separately?
the current political system brought us the politicians we've got
No, the electorate did.
The electorate's minds can be changed fairly easily.
Sure you can - the current political system brought us the politicians we've got. We're voting for a new political system, not for any particular politicians.
it's sort of an interesting view that political discourse is determined by the institutions and not the people that inhabit them. (that's not a criticism).
The institutions set limits on the discourse - in the case of Westminster, it means that only a narrow set of right-wing views are heard.
I've just voted
Takes the STW independence poll to 52 / 48.
Come on we can do it! 😀
We're voting for a new political system, not for any particular politicians.
@ben surely you going to get pretty much the same system you have already just with the Scottish Parliament only. I have to think you are going to be very dissappointed if you think the actual system is going to change. You are going to have the same career politicians working with the same real world problems as the every other country making pretty much the same choices as do all the others.