You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Apparently it is cultish to want your country to be run by the people living in it, and not by those next door.
& you can't see any similarities at all with the Brexit mindset?
Strangely enough it was ruled by Westminster.
It got its independence in the 1960s, it’s still not a rich country, but none of the people there want Westminster rule again.
BTW Scotland is not a poor country. That is the big Unionist lie.
That's my point. Scotland is not poor NOW - but some people seem to be suggesting being poor would be preferable to being ruled by English scum.
Yes, in a country that has an electoral system that is fundamentally flawed checks and balances are very important. Much more so than in a properly representative government.
So it's better to have a government that is directly representative of the will of the people? You mean like in Brexit? Or the Indy ref?
I notice no-one has been able to tell me why the line on the map is so important.
Nope .. its "theoretical" because we currently don't have to pay it off. It gets given to us by the rest of the UK doing better economically.
It becomes real if we get independence. And then it happens every year until the economy grows out of it. Thats where the projections come in, where we become denmark (but not greece) over time, for reasons.
Most countries do run a deficit, but not of that scale (this is where I mention greece again and people get all offended and then check the numbers and go quiet)
I agree that the growth report is more reality based than the book of dreams (with very positive spin).
I disagree that reality makes independence more likely.
Remember the statistic right at the start of the indy debate that people would vote for independence if it made them £400 better off?
Why do you think that the SNP invested so much time and effort on the economic chicanery in 2014.
Why do you think they coined the phrase "too poor, too wee too stupid" so that people could parrot it at anyone who expressed a negative opinion about the economy? (Still happening .. even today! if you can believe it)
The economy matters. No-one votes to make themselves poorer (unless they're lied to, see brexit again, look at the bus!).
Indy is dead for a generation (hopefully a real one this time).
Some useful GERS analysis
I notice no-one has been able to tell me why the line on the map is so important.
It's a safety net.
It physically prevents oppression from falling to the South.
No, it's theoretical because it's impossible to properly measure while Scotland is in the Union.
Historically it has not been this high. On average Scotland's deficit has been lower. Therefore, if you take the average rather than a single year (I hope you'll agree the average is more relevant than a single year) it will be easier to pay down. I would suggest you check the numbers and we'll see if you go quiet.
We may become Greece because reasons as well. At least we'll be able to decide which way to go.
It's fair enough to say the SNP performed chicanery in 2014. This allowed No to spend so much time making the argument about whether the numbers were accurate or not. If you've noticed, there hasn't been much arguing about whether the numbers are accurate or not this time around. The argument has been centered on whether Scotland should be independent rather than the numbers. The SNP have taken away a stick that No can beat us with.
That's why you're forced to go back to the 2014 campaign to make your argument.
No, its theoretical because its not money we have to cut from social care etc. at the moment.
Its an estimate because, honestly, even outside the union it would also be an estimate because thats how economic statistics work.
On that note you haven't read that link I put up have you? It has a lot to say about economics statistics and "estimates" etc. You should genuinely find it interesting if you read it.
I "went back to 2014" because you (rightly) said that the current report is different from what was said back then (which was very economical with the truth, but still being defended online in 2018!?).
Also to point out the importance of the economy to the discussion of independence. It continue to be an important part of any future discussion.
Just because the SNP have accepted the truth in the report doesn't mean that they won't obfuscate it (frankly they've lied about the contents already).
Honestly the reason many no voters like the growth report is because, though positively spun, it should hopefully prevent people talking rubbish about the only economic facts we have.
I see its not working yet.
Please read the link (I read the Richard Murphy one, again). .. hes the man who gave us corbynomics :O)
re: the average is lower
Yup. Also my average height since I was 12 is a lower number than my height now?
Your point?
Some useful Richard Murphy analysis
So again, just someone else's opinion, not fact.
We can play link tennis all day but I have some mars bars to deep fry so I'm busy elsewhere
I’ve still not tried deep fried mars bars, I just can’t bring myself to do it!
Ive had Iran Bru tablet recently, which come the revolution hopefully will be enough to get me a green.... I mean Tartan card and avoid deportation.
Actually have I? I may have blocked out the memory!
You are a biological organism (assuming you're not a Russian bot) so you start small, you get bigger, then you die.
A country doesn't change in a linear fashion in a single direction. It gets bigger, it gets smaller, it gets bigger again so the average is much more important than the instantaneous number.
Surely that's obvious?
Ive had Iran Bru tablet recently, which come the revolution hopefully will be enough to get me a green…. I mean Tartan card and avoid deportation.
Iran Bru?
Is that like Turkish Delight?
Immigration request denied.
BruceWee
I'm being obstreperous.
I understand that the average looks better for you so you want us to look at the average.
I also understand that the oil isn't coming back so some of the conditions you want to return to (that helped create a smaller average) are not available.
We could grow the economy though? Why not concentrate on that for a couple of years, and make the deficit go away altogether. Imagine what that would do for the indy debate! (before you mention "brexit" it doesn't seem to have slowed the rUK down as much as Scotland. Why? I wonder?)
BoardinBob
Yup, just someone elses opinion on Richard Murphy.
It does include the opinions of 3 professional economists on GERS, and their opinions of Richard Murphys analysis, and their defence of the civil service statisticians and a few other bits and pieces.
But they're just experts and we know what we thinks of them around here!
Nothing to see here. Move along.
See the debates getting more highbrow already, and no-one is denying GERS anymore.
Have a good weekend everyone 🙂
PS. I can't be a Russian bot because I'm against Scottish Independence :O)
... zooms off that way -> .......
And I understand the last one looks better for you so that's why you want to use it. Even if it makes no sense when talking about the economy moving forward.
The oil isn't coming back? Ask the Norwegians about Johan Sverdrup. Oil and gas is always finished until it isn't, it's a lesson that hasn't been learned in decades. Who knows though, maybe this time it's actually true.
I suspect Russia is against Scottish independence at the moment. Unless Brexit falls through, of course.
But they’re just experts and we know what we thinks of them around here!
And Richard Murphy is what? A binman or something judging by your sneering?
http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/richard-murphy/
Your credentials must be spectacular
من کشف شدم
Eat the Pudding just to correct another error in your post . The SNP campaigned for the Scottish Parliament not against it . I was a member at the time. However don't go by what I say . Here's what wiki says
The official Yes campaign, <i>Scotland Forward</i> (styled "Scotland FORward"), was headed by the businessman Nigel Smith and came out of the groups that had previously formed the Scottish Constitutional Convention, along with the Scottish National Party. It was supported by the Labour, SNP, Liberal Democrat and Green parties.<sup id="cite_ref-BBC_Brief_4-0" class="reference">[4</sup>
This is my last post on this thread because it has become repetitive like the EU thread (you'll be glad to hear). 🙂
Since the walkout, the SNP has gained so many new members that it is now reportedly the second largest party in the UK. It now out numbers the Tory party.
Considering the pro rata population bases they have to draw from, that is astounding.
It also appears to have the largest pro rata membership of a political party anywhere in the "free" world.
If that isn't the death knell of the Union, I don't know what is.
gordimhor
Things change, but SNP Campaigned against devolution in 1997.
They also used to have a different attitude to tory coalitions https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/labour-frozen-out-as-snp-buries-hatchet-with-conservatives-to-end-20-year-taboo-1-1427779
But they do love to bury the past unless its a grievance.
BoardinBob
And these are the bios of the people who think hes talking mince in the link I gave;
https://www.gla.ac.uk/schools/business/staff/ronaldmacdonald/
https://www.niesr.ac.uk/users/angus-armstrong
And these are some others who agree that GERS is good data:
Nicola Sturgeon
Alex Salmond
Scottish Government http://www.gov.scot/Topics/Statistics/Browse/Economy/GERS
So stop playing tig with the truth, or at least ask yourself why its so important to you to prove that GERS is crap when even the SNP have given up trying.
re: "sneering" Do you always have to assume bad faith/anger/resentment in anyone who disagrees with you?
Or is it that projection thing again.
re: "your credentials must be spectacular" - sounding a bit sneery there. Better have a nap.
epicyclo
Many detailed "new member" numbers flying about.
No official total number from the SNP though, only estimates! Wonder why?
And Sturgeon still can't remember the set up costs from her own report.
Numbers are funny aren't they 🙂
If eat_the_pudding isn't thm, I'll eat my hat.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/special/politics97/devolution/scotbrief.shtml
It seems the BBC agree with me ETP.
hings change, but SNP Campaigned against devolution in 1997.
No they didn't. They campaigned for a Yes/Yes vote.
Holyrood when the SNP campaigned <i>against</i> it ever being set up?
That's what you said first now you change to this.
Things change, but SNP Campaigned against devolution in 1997.
You're attempting to obscure the real argument. I wonder why.
Its what I recalled from the time (that the SNP was against devolution, seeing it as a poor mans independence and then changed their mind later) maybe I'm wrong?
In fact looking at your link (and obviously a bit of desperate googling of my own) it looks like I'm wrong about that, could be a complete brainfart or maybe it was an earlier time?
So sorry about that and thanks for the correction. I should'a googled before I wrote 🙂
But Gordimhor
Why is the thing you've found that I'm wrong about "an attempt to obscure the real argument"?
What is the this "real argument" you speak of?
Does that mean everything else I've said and can back up (about GERS, Scotlands finances etc etc.), is unimportant and irrelevant.
Or that its well documented and accepted?
km79
Thanks for your input i guess?
ETP you've made 2 claims which are false.
You've made one further claim based on a flawed measurement of the current situation and applied that to a possible future.
How would you respond to that?
In the meantime for the real argument you could start with the original post
I might be wrong, but as I recall at the time of the first Holyrood elections in 99, all parties were very upbeat with regards to the parliament except the Tories. People, the SNP and Labour were very positive, however Salmond and Dewar had very different view on the ultimate end game.
Hi again,
I found the reference that I was looking for. It was wrong of me to to say (off the cuff, based on flawed recall, without checking) that the SNP campaigned against devolution. But they did withdraw from the constitutional convention that laid the groundwork for devolution as it now exists and their 1997 manifesto (the election which led to the vote on holyrood) contained the phrase "New Labour’s scheme for a Scottish Assembly [sic] is fatally flawed, and will deliver no real power". Doesn't sound like a ringing endorsement?
More details here https://notesfromnorthbritain.wordpress.com/2013/03/08/the-snp-and-devolution/
As to:
You’ve made one further claim based on a flawed measurement of the current situation and applied that to a possible future.
If you are talking about GERS and its provenance and accuracy I think I know who has provided the positive evidence to support their case in this thread. Explain why Nicola and the SG agree with me or get off your high horse.
When the next report comes out the deficit figure might be better (which would be nice) or worse (which I would regret), but I'll accept it and move on whether its good for the argument I'm making or not. Can you say the same?
TJ did offer to show me:
much academic and rigorous analysis independent of the SNP
But then didn't, because apparently "my mind is closed" 🙂
I do hope it wasn't Richard Murphy with backing from "Dick Murphy" (the only other economist who agrees with him, and lives in the same trousers).
What was the second "FALSE CLAIM" (sound of approaching hooves). I don't recall?
I could get the feeling that you are spending more time here trying to discredit me in some way. Maybe in order to avoid answering questions or accepting facts that don't fit with your pre-decided world view, but who knows?
With reference to the original post. We all know (even deep inside) that economics is more important than woad supplies when it comes to any possibility of Scottish independence (otherwise why the animosity directed towards me on this thread?).
Political stunts and membership numbers mighty make a good story, but they aren't a sound basis for a country that can look after its own people better than they currently are.
What if the Scottish Government tried to build a better country (with better education and healthcare and social provision) NOW. Maybe the majority of people in Scotland would start to want more of the same?
A proper federal solution for UK wide issues
so thats a parliament for each constituent nation with the same powers and a federal “senate” that is representatives from each national parliament for UK wide issues
Like wot America has? I notice just how well that’s working for them right now...
ETP your second false claim is in the thread you acknowledged your error read back and refresh your memory
ETP wrote
With reference to the original post. We all know (even deep inside) that economics is more important than woad supplies when it comes to any possibility of Scottish independence
I can see the reference to Braveheart (again)but where does that make any reference to the original post?
Like wot America has?
Bit silly and very ignorant to put America's problems.down to federalism. Especially as it's far from the only country try to be run that way.
Show me a realistic route for the UK to become a federal system and then we can talk. There is absolutely zero sign of it happening. It would have to be a Macron effect x 100 for a government to be elected that would even consider it.
Not saying it can't or won't happen, just that it's a fantasy far in excess of anything the SNP have put forward as being achievable.
Fair enough, I just thought as you brought it up you could save me time.
I still fail to see a problem with being wrong and acknowledging it
Tho' I can see that "you've made two claims which were false" sounds better for you than "you've made two errors and acknowledged them" 🙂
Anyway while we're on the subject of acknowledging error, have you had any second thoughts (or viable supporting references) on why you're denying the accuracy of GERS?
You seem very determined to discredit my POV without bringing any verifiable facts of your own.
Are you having trouble finding support now that even Nicola and the SNP have moved on?
RE the original post? I'm not sure what you mean about me not addressing it? But if I haven't been clear I'll repeat using different words.
The original poster thinks that the walkout means the beginning of the end of the union.
I'm arguing that economic reality is a far greater barrier to Scottish independence.
Grievance and nationalist feeling (woad, tartan, whatever analog you choose) won't do it.
I guess you probably agree with me or you wouldn't be attacking me so much :oP
why you’re denying the accuracy of GERS?
I don't think anyone is denying the accuracy of GERS with the appropriate caveats around the data used and assumptions made.
What we are saying, is the GERS figures reflect the status quo.
What would they be under an independent Scotland? I know you're going to say "exactly the same" hence pushing the notion that an independent Scotland would have the same theoretical deficit.
I'm going to guess your position is based on the idea that the GERS figures reflect the spending requirements of Scotland as it includes an allocation for money spent in the rest of the UK which "benefits" Scotland, and even under an independent Scotland those "benefits" would need to be funded from somewhere.
<span style="font-size: 0.8rem;">We could spend a lifetime arguing over the minutiae however here's the two most commonly mentioned items of expenditure that an independent Scotland may not have: Trident and a full standing military. Without those two big ticket items, what would the deficit look like for Scotland.</span>
TLDR: we agree GERS reflects the current situation with caveats, but it doesn't reflect what an independent Scotland would look like (it could be even worse 😂 )
Anyone else listening to the R4 play last week?
Gers is the starting point. Glad we've accepted that 🙂
Things can change. No problem with that.
I feel I'm repeating myself, but an independent Scotland would have to grow its economy and reduce the deficit by a huge amount to e. g. rejoin the EU. The snp say 10 years under their favourable scenarios. Others say it might take 25 years.
Initially Scotland would have to raise taxes by 20% or reduce expenditure by 20% ish (or a bit of both).
That's why I put up the graph of Scottish spending a few pages ago.
If you're going to have an honest discussion of the economic consequences of independence then (without handwaving) tell people what you think they can do without.
Here's the graph again
Trident (as I recall SO I COULD BE WRONG!) is about £200Mn per year for Scotland. Defence could be zeroed, but may for a sensible govt be more.
What else? Find another 10Bn plus (5x tory austerity) or put up tax by 20%.
I my view that's not an argument that will get much traction with the people of Scotland.
ETP BoardingBob has it correct about GERS it's a measure of the Scottish economy under the United Kingdom govt.
So far as the OP goes I would say that E U withdrawal bill has undermined the devolution settlement and arguably begun the dissolution of the union
Initially Scotland would have to raise taxes by 20% or reduce expenditure by 20% ish (or a bit of both).
Genuine question (because I've been racing all weekend and can't be arsed doing the calculations myself) what would that do to your current deficit estimate? Half it? Eliminate it? Just get it to EU acceptable levels?
The rental for Faslane and Coulport will come to a fair bit....
The rental for Faslane and Coulport will come to a fair bit….
Indeed. And there’s nowhere else in the UK that could support it, so renting it out is probably the only option
The rental for Faslane and Coulport will come to a fair bit…
As will the oil tax income and mineral rights income (etc).
Personally, having paid this a few times in the last couple of years, I'm all for a £1 a night tourist/visitor tax on accommodation, paid direct to councils.
I would have thought that Faslane rental would be a non starter, unless a great many people are happy to forego their moral compass.
I think it would be morally wrong to close down those facilities at short notice and deprive rUK of the nuclear "deterrent" it so badly wants. IScotland could rent the facilities out while a replacement is built in Devonport/Wales etc.
Aye, for me it's not a moral issue, it's just a matter of sanity, there's no magic money tree except when you're buying nuclear white elephants or irish politicians. I'm perfectly happy for Westminster to keep pissing money into the loch, if it's their money and our loch. (which I see is now officially estimated at £50.9bn for the next decade by the National Audit Office, 25% of the entire military budget, even though they're only 2 years into budget overruns)
The irony is, we'll never know how much damage Trident would do to an enemy but we can see fine well the damage it does to the UK.
The replies since I last put up my graph seem to indicate that people aren't grasping the size of the deficit. look at the graph.. its about 50ish Bn total spending. knock off 13.
You don't replace that with a tax on motorhomes.
You can grow out of it.
But look at the best and fastest growing economies in the world.
How fast and at what cost to their social fabric, and what happens to the poor in the meantime.
Add to that that the latest reasoning for suggesting this comes on the basis of a grievance about 'stolen' powers that Holyrood has never had.
Anyway its Monday. Time to move on. Weathers nice here 🙂 What's it like where you are?
I think you're placing all your eggs in one basket with the 13BN deficit. Let's ignore all the issues with the figures and assume it's 100% accurate.
You said you don't want to look at the historical average even though it shows that Scotland's deficit is below that of the UK's. Fair enough.
Come August, it could be the deficit is back below the UK's (again, £8 billion in oil revenue with oil price at $100/bbl vs £0.2 billion with the oil price at $50 vs the current price of $75). Revenue will be higher although we can't say by how much.
Let's take a hypothetical where the deficit returns to it's historic average of being less than the UK's. What other factors make you think Independence is a bad idea?
As you said, it's Monday. Let's try changing the tune.
Anyway its Monday. Time to move on.
We live in hope....
Leaving aside the fact that the scenario you put forward is unlikely. (2014 was a perfect storm for the SNP of high oil price, toary govt, alignment of the stars etc. and still failed).
I've spent time on the 'broken record' of the deficit because people kept denying it without evidence.
But the shorthand added reasons for staying in the UK are:
Think of all the reasons its foolish and self defeating for the UK to leave the EU (closest neighbours, customers, market, putting up unnecessary barriers to trade etc. )
That's why it's foolish for Scotland to leave the UK.
I know someone will come along and say there would be no barriers and trade would be seamless, and that we would be in a partnership of equals and that nothing bad would happen. We'll if that's what you're thinking then I have a Brexit I'd like to sell you (and we can all see how that's working out).
We're better off together. There may be downsides, and imperfections but devolution protects us from the worst and the rest of the UK is still a massive part of our economy and lives (is it 5x more trade than the EU? or more?). There is definitely more that unites us than divides us.
Even if it's a marriage of convenience rather than love for many.
Look again at the EU. It was hard to describe as perfect in the face of brexiers shouting "freedumb!" and "muh own laws!" and "sovrin parlymunt! " .
That's because it's not perfect, and never will be, because what political construct is?
But now looking at the hard realities are you wanting in or out?
Scottish independence is (in my opinion) the same (brexity) answer to a different union and could well strip the country of the very things we claim to value.
A social conscience is worth sweet FA if you can't pay for it.
Indy would bring some things too. But you have to balance the pluses and minuses and the minuses are hard and real, and the pluses sound (to me) a lot like: "freedom!" and "our own laws!" and "sovereign parliament!".
Not necessarily bad things, but sometimes badly prioritised.
People have raised perfectly valid issues with the deficit. You've provided no evidence to contradict them. It swings both ways.
As I said earlier, there are plenty of issues leaving the UK and joining the EU, that's why I suggested one solution would be to join the EEA instead. It would mean an open border with England while disruption to trade with the EU would be minimised. We wouldn't be held hostage to the whims of the little-englanders and their desire to keep foreigners out no matter the cost to the economy.
I said I wouldn't post again in this thread, but this is a major coup getting this acknowledged at this time.
From Hansard tonight:
"Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put.
Question agreed to.
Main Question accordingly put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House endorses the principles of the Claim of Right for Scotland, agreed by the Scottish Constitutional Convention in 1989 and by the Scottish Parliament in 2012, and therefore acknowledges the sovereign right of the Scottish people to determine the form of government best suited to their needs."
Apparently unanimous.
It highlights the difference in sovereignty in Scotland compared to England.
Basically in Scotland the people have always been sovereign, in England the parliament is sovereign. (Our different legal system is protected by the Treaty of Union, and its priority in Scotland has been affirmed by various court cases since).
What I expect to see out of this is a political challenge to the right of Westminster to strip Scotland of its powers that are returning from the EU.