The Dirty Independence Question

[Comfy Bean]

22 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

The finances of an indy Scotland in , say, 15 years can be nothing more than guess work. It`s an ever changing world etc.

 

 

11 hours ago, eFestivals said:

Absolutely correct.

 

I notice that over the course of the day you appeared to change your position on this. I wonder why  

[Comfy Bean]

Can we go back to Neil`s mention earlier of the magical levers ( as he put it ). We just got our new tax letter at the weekend so I`m in the process of looking in to it. Perhaps you folks can help with this ?

Dave and the gang have agreed to devolve some of the tax " powers " which I`m thinking gives the SNP some options. It also would provide an opportunity for Labour to hold the SNP Govt to account over future decisions and perhaps make some policy decisions of their own in this area that could see them starting some kind of fight back.

I may be wrong here but there appears to be an element of smoke and mirrors from Dave and co around this and please correct me if I`m wrong 

With the power or levers or whatever lets imagine that the SNP Govt of today wish to raise income tax for the wealthiest in Scotland. This would seem like a popular stance and would be a start in narrowing the gap etc. 

If they don`t do it then Scottish Labour hold them to account in opposition and the people decide at the next election.

BUT.... Dave ain`t having that. What if it worked !!!!

As I understand it, if the SNP or a future Labour Govt up here wanted to raise the tax rate in the highest band they have to also raise it in the lower bands and....if they want to reduce tax for the poorest then the rich also must benefit.

Is this the case ? and what is the justification for this. It`s also not much of a lever in my opinion as Labour or the SNP will have their hands tied by the Tories at Westminster.

I was thinking about the SNP plan to introduce the 50p rate of income tax up here and I remember that this was matched by Labour so if we don`t get it asap, then Labour would have something to go on but not if Dave has pulled a fast one blocked this from being an option ?

[Comfy Bean]

10 hours ago, eFestivals said:

 

Everyone knows that Scotland could manage 'fine' as an independent country. No one disputes it

 

 

 

Not even Dave 

 

For too many people in England, the Union elicits at best a widespread ambivalence, and at worst a prevailing animosity. For those of us who care deeply about the Union, this all makes for depressing reading. There is little doubt it is under serious threat.

The question we have to answer is: what should we do? The wrong response, often reflected in the rhetoric of Gordon Brown, is to try to cow or bully Scotland into remaining part of the UK through fear of the economic consequences of going it alone.This will not work. First, supporters of independence will always be able to cite examples of small, independent and thriving economies across Europe such as Finland, Switzerland and Norway. It would be wrong to suggest that Scotland could not be another such successful, independent country.

 

Call me Dave. 11th April 2007

[eFestivals]

12 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

I realise this is pointless but for the record, what I said yesterday in reply to LJS was :

" We know we could manage fine as an independent Country "

and yet again, tedious as it is, I have never as in never ever said that I forsee great riches for Scotland.

10 or 15 years is my complete and utter guess at the earliest possible date for Scotland becoming Independent.

10 to 15 years has also been your guess at when everything is "fine" in Scotland so that it could betcome indy without financial pain.

Which equals you foreseeing great riches for Scotland, great riches which it doesn't have right now.

But it's not about the money, yeah, which is why you're so upfront at recognising what GERS says about Scotland's finances today and predict everything will 'fine' in the future.

Edited December 15, 2015 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

12 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

Well we have a version  " on-shore " I think was what you called it and we remain unclear as to who was including water costs etc.

Eh? WTF do water costs have to do about anything of Scotland's finances?

Might this be a squirrel?

Quote

Do you want to provide the actual figures for the period and we can have a go at the comparison thing with similar regions of the UK.

It doesn't matter what the situation is in other parts of the UK, because those other parts of the UK don't want to self-fund and wish to keep whole-UK with which to pool and share over their needs.

Might this be another squirrel?

 

Quote

We should also maybe take a look at who has the biggest tax take per head across these islands.

That'll be London (and no, it's naff all to do with "London  has all of the head offices").

Second is Scotland, as you and me both know.

But tax-take isn't the problem, as you and me also both know - so eyes down for this game of squirrel bingo.

 

Quote

We seem to be on the same side here though. The Finances are being badly run.

Oh look, 'Westminster baaaad', and it's not really a squirrel, is it?

The finances are NOT badly run.

Scotland costs a lot to run.

FFS.

 

Quote

We are in huge debt and the Tories are shrinking the state and cutting back on investments on things like renewable energy where Scotland is well placed to make advancements although they do not have the biggest coastline in europe. The gap between the haves and the have nots is getting wider.

 

Quote

Away from the Tory policies I think that a Labour or SNP Govt would leave Scotland  better* placed. Clearly this won`t happen tomorrow so in the meantime we have Dave and then probably Gideon 

Without a plan - which the SNP don't have - you've just spouted another....?

Quote

* better doesn`t mean richer. In fact it can have a meaning that has nothing to do with money 

I fully accept that better doesn't have to mean richer,

But the 'better' you say you want is a Scotland where public services are protected, and not the real existing Scotland where Scotland could not afford to protect those public services.

Meanwhile, if you're saying that Scotland being financially poorer is a decent trade for indy, why do you and those like you refuse to campaign on the truth of how a self-funding Scotland would be?

If you and all the other snippers were prepared to be truthful about Scotland's financial position and what self-funding would cause, I wouldn't be able to take the piss out of your every truthful word.

And meanwhile all I still see is "the oil is a bonus" and a deliberately-disingenuous "Scotland's tax take is about the same as whole UK" - which completely ignores the far-higher running costs of Scotland.

 

Edited December 15, 2015 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

12 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

Can we go back to Neil`s mention earlier of the magical levers ( as he put it ). We just got our new tax letter at the weekend so I`m in the process of looking in to it. Perhaps you folks can help with this ?

Dave and the gang have agreed to devolve some of the tax " powers " which I`m thinking gives the SNP some options. It also would provide an opportunity for Labour to hold the SNP Govt to account over future decisions and perhaps make some policy decisions of their own in this area that could see them starting some kind of fight back.

I may be wrong here but there appears to be an element of smoke and mirrors from Dave and co around this and please correct me if I`m wrong 

With the power or levers or whatever lets imagine that the SNP Govt of today wish to raise income tax for the wealthiest in Scotland. This would seem like a popular stance and would be a start in narrowing the gap etc. 

If they don`t do it then Scottish Labour hold them to account in opposition and the people decide at the next election.

BUT.... Dave ain`t having that. What if it worked !!!!

As I understand it, if the SNP or a future Labour Govt up here wanted to raise the tax rate in the highest band they have to also raise it in the lower bands and....if they want to reduce tax for the poorest then the rich also must benefit.

Is this the case ? and what is the justification for this. It`s also not much of a lever in my opinion as Labour or the SNP will have their hands tied by the Tories at Westminster.

I was thinking about the SNP plan to introduce the 50p rate of income tax up here and I remember that this was matched by Labour so if we don`t get it asap, then Labour would have something to go on but not if Dave has pulled a fast one blocked this from being an option ?

Your understanding is poor. Wrong, in fact.

The Scotland Act going thru parliament at the moment will give the ability for the SG to raise the rate for any one band while not touching the others.

Which means you can higher-tax the rich.

Which means you can see those rich up-sticks and leave for England.

Which means it won't actually raise very much extra at all (if any).

And guess what? Even if Indy, rUK still pulls Scotland's strings in exactly that way. A same-language-same-culture-same-residence-rights country next door makes upping sticks and moving across the border far easier than is the case for almost-all of our other EU partners. The one big exception to that, which has a massive population-loss problem is...? The same-language-same-culture-same-residence-rights EU country called Ireland (tho that has the hindrance of a big body of water, making movement from Scotland an easier thing).

 

[eFestivals]

12 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

Not even Dave 

 

For too many people in England, the Union elicits at best a widespread ambivalence, and at worst a prevailing animosity. For those of us who care deeply about the Union, this all makes for depressing reading. There is little doubt it is under serious threat.

The question we have to answer is: what should we do? The wrong response, often reflected in the rhetoric of Gordon Brown, is to try to cow or bully Scotland into remaining part of the UK through fear of the economic consequences of going it alone.This will not work. First, supporters of independence will always be able to cite examples of small, independent and thriving economies across Europe such as Finland, Switzerland and Norway. It would be wrong to suggest that Scotland could not be another such successful, independent country.

 

Call me Dave. 11th April 2007

Alex Salmond, Independence White Paper*: "it will take an independent Scotland 120 years to make up the difference with rUK via the advantages of being a small economy"

FFS.

(* I've paraphrased the 0.3% advantage that Salmond presented as being the advantage of small states into a sentence that's easily understandable. If you want the facts and fine detail on Salmond's claim, I suggest you read chokkablog ... tho it's worth noting that no one knows where exactly Salmond got his numbers from or why he picked the date range he did for those numbers, leading to a suspicion that even his 120 years claim is hugely over-stated).

Edited December 15, 2015 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

This has to win bat-shit crazy story of the year.

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/dec/14/bbc-dj-not-biased-despite-not-playing-bay-city-rollers-on-radio-for-six-years

It's so bat-shit crazy I would have posted it in the general news discussion, but the added-bat-shit-crazy-ness of the nutty nat angle makes it right for here.

(It's bat-shit, btw, for the complaint itself, the reasoning behind the complaint, and that it made an article in a national newspaper at all)

Edited December 15, 2015 by eFestivals

[Comfy Bean]

16 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Your understanding is poor. Wrong, in fact.

The Scotland Act going thru parliament at the moment will give the ability for the SG to raise the rate for any one band while not touching the others.

Which means you can higher-tax the rich.

Which means you can see those rich up-sticks and leave for England.

Which means it won't actually raise very much extra at all (if any).

And guess what? Even if Indy, rUK still pulls Scotland's strings in exactly that way. A same-language-same-culture-same-residence-rights country next door makes upping sticks and moving across the border far easier than is the case for almost-all of our other EU partners. The one big exception to that, which has a massive population-loss problem is...? The same-language-same-culture-same-residence-rights EU country called Ireland (tho that has the hindrance of a big body of water, making movement from Scotland an easier thing).

 

I appreciate you taking the time to answer but.....I was clearly talking about the " Calman " powers that come into effect this April. I did mention in my original post that we had received our letters over the weekend. I am aware that there MAY be further powers devolved down the line. Perhaps if we had been indy this wouldn`t have been a problem

Anywayz, back to my original point. Can an SNP or Labour Govt in Scotland introduce a higher tax rate as they promised or has Westminster scuppered that by ensuring that a tax increase has to be applied in every band. The same would apply if they want to introduce a reduced rate for lower earners ie they would have to grant higher earners the same reduced rate ?

Is this the case and how can anyone justify / defend this ?

The SNP and Labour have both said they would introduce a 50p tax rate up here. 

If I am wrong can anyone please correct me on what is happening with this from April next year. Neil says my understanding is poor but I`m not so sure ? 

 

[Comfy Bean]

12 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

Not even Dave 

 

For too many people in England, the Union elicits at best a widespread ambivalence, and at worst a prevailing animosity. For those of us who care deeply about the Union, this all makes for depressing reading. There is little doubt it is under serious threat.

The question we have to answer is: what should we do? The wrong response, often reflected in the rhetoric of Gordon Brown, is to try to cow or bully Scotland into remaining part of the UK through fear of the economic consequences of going it alone.This will not work. First, supporters of independence will always be able to cite examples of small, independent and thriving economies across Europe such as Finland, Switzerland and Norway. It would be wrong to suggest that Scotland could not be another such successful, independent country.

 

Call me Dave. 11th April 2007

 

18 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Alex Salmond, Independence White Paper*: "it will take an independent Scotland 120 years to make up the difference with rUK via the advantages of being a small economy"

FFS.

(* I've paraphrased the 0.3% advantage that Salmond presented as being the advantage of small states into a sentence that's easily understandable. If you want the facts and fine detail on Salmond's claim, I suggest you read chokkablog ... tho it's worth noting that no one knows where exactly Salmond got his numbers from or why he picked the date range he did for those numbers, leading to a suspicion that even his 120 years claim is hugely over-stated).

The only inaccuracy in my quote is Dave`s name is not actually " Call me Dave ".

I suspect yours is made up.

Did Dave`s words touch a nerve perhaps 

I liked the bits in red the best. Remember that this is actually a real quote. 

 

[eFestivals]

19 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

I appreciate you taking the time to answer but.....I was clearly talking about the " Calman " powers that come into effect this April. I did mention in my original post that we had received our letters over the weekend. I am aware that there MAY be further powers devolved down the line.

The latest Scotland act provisions will be yours in April 2017.

That's unless the SNP reject them of course - which they're trying to cook up an angle to do. Despite accepting Smith, and the new Scotland Act is Smith.

(there's a few technicalities where it isn't in the wording, but at least one of those technicalities is an impossibility anyway - making the SG permanent. That can't be done without Westminster ceasing to be sovereign and the Scottish people ceasing to be sovereign).

 

Quote

Perhaps if we had been indy this wouldn`t have been a problem

That wouldn't have been, tho you'd have shit loads of massively bigger problems - like what to cut first, making tory cuts look like a big handout.

The difference in the size of deficit between whole-UK and Scotland equals all of the Scottish education & training budget, plus some more.

 

Quote

Anywayz, back to my original point. Can an SNP or Labour Govt in Scotland introduce a higher tax rate as they promised or has Westminster scuppered that by ensuring that a tax increase has to be applied in every band.

The same would apply if they want to introduce a reduced rate for lower earners ie they would have to grant higher earners the same reduced rate ?

Is this the case and how can anyone justify / defend this ?

It wasn't promised in Calman. It is promised in Smith. If you actually followed the facts, you'd know this.

The difference is just one year in when Scotland can do it (but won't, I guarantee it won't).

 

Quote

The SNP and Labour have both said they would introduce a 50p tax rate up here. 

Labour might. The SNP won't.

The SNP will point to the facts (that some richer Scots will leave), and claim Westminster hasn't given them enough powers to make it workable as they always do.

And they'll completely ignore the fact that some richer Scots will leave in all circumstances of a higher tax rate no matter what powers Scotland might have.

 

Quote

If I am wrong can anyone please correct me on what is happening with this from April next year. Neil says my understanding is poor but I`m not so sure ? 

You're correct that Calman comes in in April.

But it's just about irrelevant, because a year later you'll get Smith (unless refused by the SNP, laughably) with many extra powers including the power that Calman doesn't have that you mention here.

Getting pissed off about Calman when you know better is following close behind is a bit pointless.

Edited December 15, 2015 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

15 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

 

The only inaccuracy in my quote is Dave`s name is not actually " Call me Dave ".

I suspect yours is made up.

Did Dave`s words touch a nerve perhaps 

I liked the bits in red the best. Remember that this is actually a real quote. 

 

http://chokkablog.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/the-power-of-being-persistently-right.html

 

Quote

at it's simplest we’d require 12% growth over and above the rest of the UK to close the gap through growth alone. The White paper provided an illustration suggesting cumulatively 3.8% superior growth over 30 years might be a realistic "independence dividend". There are plenty of arguments (currency, trade) that suggest we may not experience superior growth - but even at that optimistic rate it would take us over 100 years to close the gap. That's a long time during which we'd have to find other ways to fund our exceptional deficit.

 

Edited December 15, 2015 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

PS: a correction.

I said extra growth (extra, above the UK level) would be 0.3% annually on the basis of the advantage Salmond claimed in the White Paper that small states have.

In fact it's much lower.

Salmond claimed 3.8% extra over 30 years. Ignoring the cumulative effect of growth (which would make the extra smaller than the number I'm about to quote), a simple 30 divided by 3.8% gives a yearly extra growth of just 0.12666%.

 

Edited December 15, 2015 by eFestivals

[Comfy Bean]

OK ...so in summary. The "powers" that we should be grateful to have received ( so far ) on tax that kick in this coming April would not " allow " a Labour or SNP led Scottish Govt to introduce a higher tax rate in the high earner band only. If they want to do it then they have to tax the low earners at the same rate - Nice !

Defend and deflect all you like but I am concluding that the Tories blocked this for the reasons I have outlined.

I read your link and it appears to be about an ongoing twitter argument. Alex Salmond was not quoted in the way you suggested. As I said, the quote from Dave was an actual quote. Yours was not.

In fairness your squirrels were cute so there is always that 

[eFestivals]

15 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

OK ...so in summary. The "powers" that we should be grateful to have received ( so far ) on tax that kick in this coming April would not " allow " a Labour or SNP led Scottish Govt to introduce a higher tax rate in the high earner band only. If they want to do it then they have to tax the low earners at the same rate - Nice !

Defend and deflect all you like but I am concluding that the Tories blocked this for the reasons I have outlined.

Think what you like, but the view in 2012 was very different to the view of things now, and so it's hardly surprising that powers granted in 2012 seem unsuitable today given the political change in Scotland since 2012.

As i've said, they're just about an irrelevance anyway. You';ll be getting the powers over income tax rates as you'd like them to be just 12 months later.

It only means something in the end if Scotland is prepared to use those powers, and everything is pointing to them not being used anyway - for which you'll be able to squarely blame the SNP (tho here's betting you won't) from April 2017.

 

Quote

I read your link and it appears to be about an ongoing twitter argument. Alex Salmond was not quoted in the way you suggested. As I said, the quote from Dave was an actual quote. Yours was not.

Read the fucking thing, don't read the first line and think that's your intelligence quota for the day.

It very specifically refers to the word of Salmond (remember him? Your ex-glorious leader) in the White Paper (remember that? It promised you riches via lies).

The lies linger. LJS hasn't said it recently but he used to trot out the "small countries perform better" bollocks - without referencing just how small the better performance is, so small it's as good as irrelevant i9n sorting Scotland's self-funding issues. 120 years!!!!

And now you're doing the same, talking crap about how in 10 or 15 years time things might be different so that Scotland is 'fine''. Scotland will not be 'fine' for very many decades. It will require massive cuts to sustain itself if self-funding.

And it's fuck all to do with the Scotland's economy having been run poorly (it performs at the Western European average and the UK average), it's just the simple fact that Scotland is significantly more expensive to run because of its geography and demographics.

PS: unlike WoS, chokka has yet to be pulled up on a factual mistake - while WoS has reams of them.

 

Edited December 15, 2015 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

PS ... I've gotta laugh, comfy ... you're now rejecting the word of Salmond in favour of the word of the pigfucker.

If that doesn't wake you up to the fact that you're picking the most self-serving info rather than applying intelligence to info that's presented to you, I don't know what will.

 

[eFestivals]

This looks like a bit of an 'ouch' moment.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/dec/15/scotland-debt-mountain-holyrood-borrowing-could-hit-50bn-by-2020

I won't pretend to know what it means in comparison to what's going on in rUK, tho I'm already aware (and have mentioned it here before now) that a significant chunk of what the SNP have managed to do policy-wise within Scotland has been done by councils taking on much larger debts which has their (proportional) debt level at about double the English council's debts. At some point people in Scotland will be picking up the tab for the SNP's largesse.

The timings mentioned in the article of when those debts will impact onto people and services within Scotland is interesting too - as it looks like the SNP have gone for spend-now-pay-after-we've-mugged-everyone-into-indy method. This stands a real chance of coming back on them and slapping them in the face, but without them having the prize of indy to set-against it.

All in all it looks like the SNP would have to be making significant cuts over the ten-ish years from now even if the block grant had been maintained in real terms since 2010.

So I can happily say I really hope the SNP clean up in the next local elections.

Edited December 15, 2015 by eFestivals

[LJS]

7 hours ago, eFestivals said:

This looks like a bit of an 'ouch' moment.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/dec/15/scotland-debt-mountain-holyrood-borrowing-could-hit-50bn-by-2020

I won't pretend to know what it means in comparison to what's going on in rUK, tho I'm already aware (and have mentioned it here before now) that a significant chunk of what the SNP have managed to do policy-wise within Scotland has been done by councils taking on much larger debts which has their (proportional) debt level at about double the English council's debts. At some point people in Scotland will be picking up the tab for the SNP's largesse.

The timings mentioned in the article of when those debts will impact onto people and services within Scotland is interesting too - as it looks like the SNP have gone for spend-now-pay-after-we've-mugged-everyone-into-indy method. This stands a real chance of coming back on them and slapping them in the face, but without them having the prize of indy to set-against it.

All in all it looks like the SNP would have to be making significant cuts over the ten-ish years from now even if the block grant had been maintained in real terms since 2010.

So I can happily say I really hope the SNP clean up in the next local elections.

This article sums up why I and many others no longer read the Guardian.

Starting out with the claim that " Public sector debt in Scotland has mushroomed to record levels after an SNP government spending spree funded by billions of pounds’ worth of borrowing "

In support of this it lists  the " £22bn-worth of historic private finance initiative (PFI) debts" which were nothing to do with the SNP (the SNP scrapped PFI on gaining power) and adds in the  £15Bn that Scottish councils owe. (The SNP have minority control of 3 of Scotland's 32 local authorities & are in power as part of coalitions in several others)

In other words whatever your views on PFI's and the level of local authority debt, a very small part of this could conceivably be put down to an "SNP government spending spree" and they form £37Bn of debt that already exists out of a projected £50Bn that might exist by 2020. 

There are perfectly reasonable questions to ask about whether this level of debt is justified & sustainable  - that is exactly what good journalists should do. 

To blatantly misrepresent this as all being the result of an "an SNP government spending spree" is the sort of trash journalism I'd expect from the Daily Mail at its worst. 

[By the way, feel free to claim that I cribbed all this from the Bishop of Bath. I didn't  - I had already formed my views before I read the bishop. 

He is however largely correct in this instance so I invite you to have a read for a more detailed critique of Mr Carrol's hatchet job.]

 

 

[LJS]

7 hours ago, eFestivals said:

 

All in all it looks like the SNP would have to be making significant cuts over the ten-ish years from now even if the block grant had been maintained in real terms since 2010.

 

I hadn't noticed your claim above which is, of course, nonsense

 

Quote

 

2009-10 to 2014-15 As Figure 1 shows, the Scottish Barnett block grant fell £1 billion in cash terms between 2009-10 and 2011-12; from £29.7 billion to £28.7 billion. By this financial year (2014-15), the grant has slowly grown to almost reach its 2009-10 cash level again. However, although now almost back at 2009-10 cash levels, the spending power of this budget, its real terms value, has fallen by £3.2 billion, or by -10%.  

http://fiscalaffairsscotland.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Long-term-Scottish-budget-projections.pdf

 

also

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/50910/Version_20for_20website_20DB_20426.pdf

also

 

Quote

 

Lord Kilclooney Crossbench

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what was the total amount of the block grant transferred by HM Treasury to Scotland for each of the past three years for which figures are available.

• Hansard source(Citation: HL Deb, 29 October 2013, c247W)

Lord Deighton The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury

The data requested is set out in the table below:

2010-11	2011-12	2012-13
£m	£m	£m
28,870	27,921	28,281

 

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2013-10-29a.247.0

 

 

 

[Comfy Bean]

11 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

I read your link and it appears to be about an ongoing twitter argument. .

 

 

11 hours ago, eFestivals said:

 

Read the fucking thing, don't read the first line and think that's your intelligence quota for the day.

 

 

Leaving aside your quite un-necessary insults, as I said, I took the time to read it earlier. I have had another quick run through the article and your man mentions WOS, Bath or " Stu " in each and everyone one of the first 10 paragraphs. He specifically mentions a twitter spat and goes on to mention WOS, Bath or Stu in each and everyone of the last 10 paragraphs. I`m sure there were plenty more mentions in between but I was losing the will to live.

You often resort to bringing up extreme examples from what you see as the YES Camp by quoting stuff from wings or from beneath newspaper articles ( see the Bay City Rollers earlier ) instead of addressing the more moderate views brought up on here eg where are the figures that include off shore tax receipts or the comparisons with other regions when we take London out of the equation ?

Your input into the debate around our renewable energy potential was to mis-represent what I was saying and reduce us to discussing the length of coastlines across Europe.

You continually claim I say that we will be fine in 15 years no matter how many times I remind you of what I actually said and would rather throw around insults or call me a Tory............same thing really 

You seem to have no interest in discussing the Scottish Govts hands being tied by westminster should they want to raise tax on the richest up here from April preferring to speculate instead about what might happen in the future. You also have no interest in acknowledging that only the 2 Libs MP`s voted for Dave`s Syria plan or the improvements in our NHS figures or increase in the number of folk from deprived areas going to Uni etc.

I can only imagine what you will say when the time comes for the renewal of trident. 

 

[eFestivals]

11 hours ago, LJS said:

This article sums up why I and many others no longer read the Guardian.

Starting out with the claim that " Public sector debt in Scotland has mushroomed to record levels after an SNP government spending spree funded by billions of pounds’ worth of borrowing "

In support of this it lists  the " £22bn-worth of historic private finance initiative (PFI) debts" which were nothing to do with the SNP (the SNP scrapped PFI on gaining power) and adds in the  £15Bn that Scottish councils owe. (The SNP have minority control of 3 of Scotland's 32 local authorities & are in power as part of coalitions in several others)

In other words whatever your views on PFI's and the level of local authority debt, a very small part of this could conceivably be put down to an "SNP government spending spree" and they form £37Bn of debt that already exists out of a projected £50Bn that might exist by 2020. 

There are perfectly reasonable questions to ask about whether this level of debt is justified & sustainable  - that is exactly what good journalists should do. 

To blatantly misrepresent this as all being the result of an "an SNP government spending spree" is the sort of trash journalism I'd expect from the Daily Mail at its worst. 

[By the way, feel free to claim that I cribbed all this from the Bishop of Bath. I didn't  - I had already formed my views before I read the bishop. 

He is however largely correct in this instance so I invite you to have a read for a more detailed critique of Mr Carrol's hatchet job.]

It's a dreadful article, I know. It's completely devoid of context.

But it's certainly true that as a result of SNP policy Scotland's councils have had to ramp up their borrowing to deliver services right now, and that's going to impact back onto services in the future, and make things worse than they'd otherwise have been.

As you've quoted WoS, I'll quote the latest chokka - which points out that a self-funding Scotland would need a 20% increase in the tax burden to keep delivering what is delivered now.

Edited December 16, 2015 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

11 hours ago, LJS said:

I hadn't noticed your claim above which is, of course, nonsense

 

also

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/50910/Version_20for_20website_20DB_20426.pdf

also

 

 

As you so very kindly point out, the debts have grown by more than the budget has been cut.

As borrowing isn't free, that will impact back on the ability to spend at the current levels in the future.

What are you failing to understand?

Edited December 16, 2015 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

10 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

Leaving aside your quite un-necessary insults, as I said, I took the time to read it earlier. I have had another quick run through the article and your man mentions WOS, Bath or " Stu " in each and everyone one of the first 10 paragraphs. He specifically mentions a twitter spat and goes on to mention WOS, Bath or Stu in each and everyone of the last 10 paragraphs. I`m sure there were plenty more mentions in between but I was losing the will to live.

And it also quotes Salmond, who is giving the *ONLY* projection that exists for Scotland's extra growth potential as 'a small nation', the very thing that both you and LJS have said will give Scotland salvation from its deficit problem.

That *ONLY* projection by someone who is proven to have fiddled projections in Scotland's favour (see chokka again, for his analysis of projected govt oil revenues [something very different to projected oil price changes]) says that what you pin your hopes on will take 120 years to happen.

What aren't you understanding?

 

Quote

You often resort to bringing up extreme examples from what you see as the YES Camp by quoting stuff from wings or from beneath newspaper articles ( see the Bay City Rollers earlier ) instead of addressing the more moderate views brought up on here eg where are the figures that include off shore tax receipts or the comparisons with other regions when we take London out of the equation ?

Off-shore tax receipts are now just about meaningless.

Govt oil revenues are based on extraction profits. With a low oil price there are no extraction profits.

Comparisons with other UK regions are meaningless towards Scotland's self-funding 'plans' (snigger). Other UK regions do not plan to self-fund, and therefore are able to guarantee themselves the benefits of pooling and sharing.

 

Quote

Your input into the debate around our renewable energy potential was to mis-represent what I was saying and reduce us to discussing the length of coastlines across Europe.

You mentioned the renewable energy potential as providing extra GDP (and so extra govt revenue) above what there is now. I pointed out the facts for why your claim is extremely likely to not be the case.

If you didn't mention it in relation to it giving a boost to govt revenues (which is what you said after I'd knocked it down) it has absolutely no bearing on govt revenues and therefore is no extra benefit to Scotland's finances and is an irrelevance to the indy debate.

 

Quote

You seem to have no interest in discussing the Scottish Govts hands being tied by westminster should they want to raise tax on the richest up here from April preferring to speculate instead about what might happen in the future.

What's to discuss?

You know it doesn't work how you say you'd like it to, and i know it doesn't work how you say you'd like it to.

I've pointed out that just a year later - no speculation (unless the SNP refuse to take they new powers that you say you want and the SNP say they want. They agreed to Smith, remember?) - that Scotland gets the powers you and the SNP say they want.

The reality on the ground has - no speculation - moved on from the powers that come next April. They're just about an irrelevance, and later today Swinney will tell us all that they are 100% irrelevant.

 

Quote

You also have no interest in acknowledging that only the 2 Libs MP`s voted for Dave`s Syria plan or the improvements in our NHS figures or increase in the number of folk from deprived areas going to Uni etc.

I don't understand what you're on about in the first bit, and I've already acknowledge the 2nd bit.

But if you wish to talk about the 2nd bit, Sturgeon fucked up the SNHS royally, as those SNHS numbers over the years prove, and did far far worse than those nasty Westminster tories at running a major public service.

 

10 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

I can only imagine what you will say when the time comes for the renewal of trident. 

I'll say I'm against Trident.

But i'll also point out that the loss of Trident to Scotland will further-degrade Scotland's economic position, because that's the truth of things. More of the Trident money is spent in Scotland than Scotland contributes.

And you'll fail to understand how come someone who says he'#s against it and with all the facts to hand is able to take that consistent and factually-correct intellectual position, as you always do.

Edited December 16, 2015 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

12 hours ago, LJS said:

This article sums up why I and many others no longer read the Guardian.

Starting out with the claim that " Public sector debt in Scotland has mushroomed to record levels after an SNP government spending spree funded by billions of pounds’ worth of borrowing "

In support of this it lists  the " £22bn-worth of historic private finance initiative (PFI) debts" which were nothing to do with the SNP (the SNP scrapped PFI on gaining power) and adds in the  £15Bn that Scottish councils owe. (The SNP have minority control of 3 of Scotland's 32 local authorities & are in power as part of coalitions in several others)

In other words whatever your views on PFI's and the level of local authority debt, a very small part of this could conceivably be put down to an "SNP government spending spree" and they form £37Bn of debt that already exists out of a projected £50Bn that might exist by 2020. 

There are perfectly reasonable questions to ask about whether this level of debt is justified & sustainable  - that is exactly what good journalists should do. 

To blatantly misrepresent this as all being the result of an "an SNP government spending spree" is the sort of trash journalism I'd expect from the Daily Mail at its worst. 

[By the way, feel free to claim that I cribbed all this from the Bishop of Bath. I didn't  - I had already formed my views before I read the bishop. 

He is however largely correct in this instance so I invite you to have a read for a more detailed critique of Mr Carrol's hatchet job.]

I've now been and read the WoS article, and it's absolutely laughable - ONE BIG LIE!! - and you've called it "largely correct".

It's far worse than any false impression Severin might have been aiming at.

This is the laughable lying line I've been seeing endlessly in the last 24 hours by brainless snippers....

Quote

If true, a debt of £51bn would represent around 32% of Scotland’s current GDP of £159bn. That compares extremely favourably with the UK’s current debt of between 82% and 90% of GDP, (depending how you calculate it). George Osborne’s most optimistic target is to reduce that to 72% by 2020  – still over twice Scotland’s level.

Suddenly and miraculously, Scotland has shed itself of its share of the UK national debt.

I'll point out again that I know Severin's article is dreadful, and that it spouts all that stuff without giving any context against the UK's position on whole-debt .... but I also know that Scotland's councils have been on a debt-spree since 2011, because the SNP have forced them to via SG policy. And I also know that the same debt-spree hasn't happened in England.

But to pretend that Scotland doesn't have it's fair share of UK national debt are words for the brain dead - and you referenced it and called it "largely correct".

Edited December 16, 2015 by eFestivals

[russycarps]

£50bn! Wow. Absolutely terrifying figures. 

I see the raving nationalists have their shovels out and are furiously digging even deeper holes than usual to bury their heads in. I don't blame them really, imagine how daft you'd be feeling in you'd voted yes.

Really looking forward to swinney's stand up comedy later today.