The Dirty Independence Question

[eFestivals]

hey LJS ......

I'm rather amused by your approving comment in the EUref thread at my words....

1 hour ago, LJS said:

Perfectly put.

... cos would you like to take a guess on where and how I honed these arguments...?

[LJS]

2 hours ago, eFestivals said:

hey LJS ......

I'm rather amused by your approving comment in the EUref thread at my words....

... cos would you like to take a guess on where and how I honed these arguments...?

Was it in front of the bathroom mirror?

There will be many parallels drawn between statements made by both sides during Indy ref & what they are saying now. At first glance, some of them may appear contradictory. And indeed they would be if the relationship between the UK & the EU was the same as that between Scotland and the UK. It isn't.

[eFestivals]

2 minutes ago, LJS said:

Was it in front of the bathroom mirror?

There will be many parallels drawn between statements made by both sides during Indy ref & what they are saying now. At first glance, some of them may appear contradictory. And indeed they would be if the relationship between the UK & the EU was the same as that between Scotland and the UK. It isn't.

True. The UK gets better value for the £8Bn a year the EU costs than it does from the £8Bn a year Scotland costs.

(sorry, couldn't resist)

[LJS]

I'm afraid I have neither the patience or perseverance to read the whole thing on a Friday night when it is competing with a bottle of red wine. But I have read the start of it & also some of the reports in  the press etc 

4 hours ago, eFestivals said:

yep - Scotland didn't get PCID, apart from for a "transitional period" (the term of the next SG) and even then not in all parts of the new devolved finances.

Right, so you've picked up that, for all intents & purposes we have PCID for the transitional period - I'm not clear what you mean by the bit about "not in all parts..."  - can you clarify?

4 hours ago, eFestivals said:

Nor did they get the set-up costs they wanted. They got less than half of it (and it's worth pointing out, this equals about year's worth of the amount being argued over for the main financial transfer, which has allowed the SG to save some face over the main part while the Uk govt only cares about the total amounts).

I don't know how you work out the "less than half" bit as various figures have been bandied about - I have not seen confirmed figures for what Scot gov originally wanted. 

4 hours ago, eFestivals said:

And there's also a lot of "costs will be met by the SG" within it, too.

The SG picks up more risk than Sturgeon said she'd accept in one of her recent letters.

The main risk she didn 't want was relating to differential population change - she's got that.

4 hours ago, eFestivals said:

There's also an awful lot of 'support'  clauses. It's almost like the SNP know how much Scotland might need supporting.

It looks like there's to be greater scrutiny of SG spending than the SNP wanted to allow (tho it's hard to be entirely sure).

I believe this is correct  - the SNP had blocked a bid for independent scrutiny of its fiscal position - it looks as if it has had to backtrack on this - I approve.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/feb/11/snp-denies-nobbling-fiscal-commissions-oversight-powers

(this article is by Severin Carrol who, as we established some time ago is a tad biaised when it comes to the SNP  - so let's not take every word of it as gospel - & of course its reference to the " independent Office for Budget Responsibility " is interesting considering the recent revelations about its alleged lack of independence.)

4 hours ago, eFestivals said:

----

Overall - from the limited reporting prior to agreement - it looks like both sides have conceded a fair amount of ground

 

Yup - just like i always said they would

4 hours ago, eFestivals said:

(tho that's perhaps more to do with bravdo in public pronouncements), but without seeing the previous proposals from each side it's impossible to know where exactly each has moved from, apart from the SG having moved from "PCID and nothing else" and the UK-govt having moved from a revised version of LA.

One thing that did jump out me tho is the use of (just) last-year numbers in a few cases - where a longer average would have been more beneficial to Scotland. I suspect that this part is where there's been the most movement from the SG, as nothing of what they might have given away during the negotiation process is revealed by that as there'd been no previous statements about it.

In other words - you have no idea - if we were happy with last year's settlements (or as happy as you can be with an austerity crazed chancer...oops chancellor) then I see no reason why we wouldn't be happy with using it as a base.

 

4 hours ago, eFestivals said:

And finally, the review down the line gets to hide a multitude of sins, where Scotland might take a 'cut' (tho a cut against a hypothetical number, so not really a cut) and ultimately be taking the UK-govts initial offer that they said wasn't good enough, but be able to point to stuff around the review and claim there's not been a cut. ... and while all the same in reverse might be true for the UK govt instead, the political angles suggest its less likely to be that way round.

 

"The fiscal framework does not include or assume the method for adjusting the block grant beyond the transitional period.  "

 

so yeah it coudl go either way

[eFestivals]

6 minutes ago, LJS said:

Right, so you've picked up that, for all intents & purposes we have PCID for the transitional period - I'm not clear what you mean by the bit about "not in all parts..."  - can you clarify?

There's financials for a number of different things being transferred. Not all of them use the same financial model for calculating the value of the transfer. If you read the doc that bit jumps out as you read thru the items.

In essence, I guess, it ends up in total as being 'a modified PCID' - but probably just about gives Sturgeon the room to claim she got what she was demanding which was always going to be a political necessity of any deal once she'd taken the public stance she had.

 

Edited February 26, 2016 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

8 minutes ago, LJS said:

The main risk she didn 't want was relating to differential population change - she's got that.

she wanted it as a one way street where Scotland gained all ways. She's got a two way street instead, where any gain for Scotland is shared back.

That part is rather important for the fairness angle.

[LJS]

6 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

she wanted it as a one way street where Scotland gained all ways. She's got a two way street instead, where any gain for Scotland is shared back.

That is clearly your interpretation. Not fact. 

6 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

That part is rather important for the fairness angle.

Indeed

[eFestivals]

12 minutes ago, LJS said:

In other words - you have no idea - if we were happy with last year's settlements (or as happy as you can be with an austerity crazed chancer...oops chancellor) then I see no reason why we wouldn't be happy with using it as a base.

I have an idea it's not PCID, because it's clearly not.

It's also not a as beneficial number for the SG as a longer average would have been.

What I'm getting at is it looks like Scotland got PCID with the headline announcement, but other parts have been done in such a way to trim it back.

I'm not trying to slur, or even say if it was a good or bad deal overall, I'm just pointing out the being able to proclaim victory on that particular part was of utmost importance to Sturgeon, so the concessions had to be made elsewhere.

[eFestivals]

19 minutes ago, LJS said:

"The fiscal framework does not include or assume the method for adjusting the block grant beyond the transitional period.  "

 

so yeah it coudl go either way

Actually, I'd find that wording rather scary. That puts everything about Barnett up for rejection.

What we do know is that there's an on-going review, where comparisons of what might have been will be made with what actually happens.

Any too-much-generosity in this deal within that comparison process will be used to ensure a lower next deal, by the look of things.

[LJS]

23 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Actually, I'd find that wording rather scary. That puts everything about Barnett up for rejection.

What we do know is that there's an on-going review, where comparisons of what might have been will be made with what actually happens.

Any too-much-generosity in this deal within that comparison process will be used to ensure a lower next deal, by the look of things.

I would assume any future deal would still be bound by the no detriment principle. So whilst Barnett is always "up for rejection" it is unlikely to be through this deal. 

[LJS]

3 hours ago, eFestivals said:

I have an idea it's not PCID, because it's clearly not.

 

Ah so its not PCID

8 hours ago, eFestivals said:

yep - Scotland didn't get PCID, apart from for a "transitional period" (the term of the next SG) and even then not in all parts of the new devolved finances.

 

 

Ah so it is PCID

[eFestivals]

13 hours ago, LJS said:

I would assume any future deal would still be bound by the no detriment principle. So whilst Barnett is always "up for rejection" it is unlikely to be through this deal. 

That's the point tho - the review process can prove there'd be no detriment in using a calculation that gave a lower figure.

It's one thing arguing against past numbers and saying they're not applicable going forwards, but it would be impossible to make the same claim against real numbers for real years (2017 onwards).

Don't forget, no one actually knows how much the income tax transfer is actually worth, because income taxes haven't been regionalised before now - and so the SNP (understandably) would be looking more at the worst case scenario for Scottish IT revenues than the best for what London should give them. Once there's real numbers, all of the hypotheticals are rejected for a review on the real life situation.

So, in the future the SNP might have to accept the hypothetical 'cuts' they've said are unacceptable right now, because the real world might prove they were never actually a cut.

[eFestivals]

10 hours ago, LJS said:

Ah so its not PCID

Ah so it is PCID

The first comment was against a specific thing, that has nothing of PCID used.

The second comment was against everything, where PCID is used for a part of it and nothing similar is used for all the rest.

Neither are the PCID that the SNP claimed they'd take nothing less than, but you don't do facts, you prefer to post bollocks than have to admit any inconvenient truth.

[LJS]

30 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

The first comment was against a specific thing, that has nothing of PCID used.

The second comment was against everything, where PCID is used for a part of it and nothing similar is used for all the rest.

Neither are the PCID that the SNP claimed they'd take nothing less than, but you don't do facts, you prefer to post bollocks than have to admit any inconvenient truth.

If it looks like a duck & says "quack" it's probably a duck. 

 

[eFestivals]

3 minutes ago, LJS said:

If it looks like a duck & says "quack" it's probably a duck. 

 

then the SNP have bought a chicken.

 

[LJS]

8 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

then the SNP have bought a chicken.

 

Cock! 

 

You might be interested in Jim Cuthbert_s view. He is not a fan.

 

http://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2016/02/26/problems-with-the-fiscal-settlement/

[eFestivals]

Just now, LJS said:

Cock! 

 

You might be interested in Jim Cuthbert_s view. He is not a fan.

 

http://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2016/02/26/problems-with-the-fiscal-settlement/

ahh, the famous Cuthberts, that no one had ever heard of until the snippers desperately needed someone to agree with them.

I see it's not working out with them exactly as hoped.

 

 

[LJS]

23 hours ago, eFestivals said:

ahh, the famous Cuthberts, that no one had ever heard of until the snippers desperately needed someone to agree with them.

I see it's not working out with them exactly as hoped.

 

 

I fail to see the relevance of when we first heard of them. When did you first hear of your pal Kevin Hague? Does that stop you worshipping his every spreadsheet?

Jim Cuthbert is a real economist who has actually worked in government. That doesn't make him always right. Indeed in this case I am unconvinced by his argument. I simply posted it as it gives another viewpoint on the frisky framework:)

[LJS]

 

Quote

 

SNP to launch radical overhaul of benefits system

  A MAJOR overhaul of Scottish social security is to be ­announced this week with Nicola Sturgeon’s government signalling its intention to fund a more generous benefits system than elsewhere in the UK.

Social Justice Secretary Alex Neil yesterday said he aimed to remove the “stigma” of accessing benefits by developing a system that departs from the controversial welfare reforms introduced by the UK government.

 

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/snp-to-launch-radical-overhaul-of-benefits-system-1-4039177

 

Presumably Neil will tell us they'll be funding middle class ski-ing holidays & the like.

[eFestivals]

1 minute ago, LJS said:

 

Presumably Neil will tell us they'll be funding middle class ski-ing holidays & the like.

The SNP have already announced that one, with their plan to help extra wealth leave Scotland by making foreign holidays cheaper.

You've posted something as a joke, and the joke is on you.

[eFestivals]

31 minutes ago, LJS said:

I fail to see the relevance of when we first heard of them. When did you first hear of your pal Kevin Hague? Does that stop you worshipping his every spreadsheet?

Jim Cuthbert is a real economist who has actually worked in government. That doesn't make him always right. Indeed in this case I am unconvinced by his argument. I simply posted it as it gives another viewpoint on the frisky framework:)

There's economic views which recognise the effect of the loss of 16% of govt revenues and then there's comedy.

From reading that piece at Bella, it appears to be the case that Cuthbert is working for the SNP &/or the SG currently, as he mentions being sat in on recent-ish meetings with the Treasury.

And from reading that piece you can see what his primary interest is, which is politically and not economically driven.

[LJS]

2 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

There's economic views which recognise the effect of the loss of 16% of govt revenues and then there's comedy.

From reading that piece at Bella, it appears to be the case that Cuthbert is working for the SNP &/or the SG currently, as he mentions being sat in on recent-ish meetings with the Treasury.

And from reading that piece you can see what his primary interest is, which is politically and not economically driven.

As far as I can see Jim Cuthbert is neither working for the SNP or the Scottish Government & while he (sensibly) favour independence he is far from uncritical of the SNP  - indeed, I can't imagine John Swinney's heart jumping for joy if he read the Bella article.

 

Just to prove my point here is a recent article published in " “Is there a Scottish Road to Socialism, 3rd Edition”  which is not, as far as I can see a Scottish government publication. He is critical of the SNP in it. 

 

"This chapter asks if we are getting from the Scottish government the joined up thinking necessary for creating a fairer society in Scotland. The answer, unfortunately, is no: and the chapter illustrates how much more could be done, using powers which are already available within the remit of the Scottish government. "

 

download this paper

[LJS]

35 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

The SNP have already announced that one, with their plan to help extra wealth leave Scotland by making foreign holidays cheaper.

You've posted something as a joke, and the joke is on you.

...& you conveniently avoided commenting on a potentially redistributive proposal from the evil SNP.

[eFestivals]

43 minutes ago, LJS said:

...& you conveniently avoided commenting on a potentially redistributive proposal from the evil SNP.

Instead I commented on what you mentioned, of the SNP funding middle class holidays. Note that promise is before any redistribution, too.

As for any redistribution, firstly they have to announce the tax rises ... And the only one talked of so far will raise the peanuts of £200m.

[eFestivals]

48 minutes ago, LJS said:

As far as I can see Jim Cuthbert is neither working for the SNP or the Scottish Government & while he (sensibly) favour independence he is far from uncritical of the SNP  - indeed, I can't imagine John Swinney's heart jumping for joy if he read the Bella article.

 

Just to prove my point here is a recent article published in " “Is there a Scottish Road to Socialism, 3rd Edition”  which is not, as far as I can see a Scottish government publication. He is critical of the SNP in it. 

 

"This chapter asks if we are getting from the Scottish government the joined up thinking necessary for creating a fairer society in Scotland. The answer, unfortunately, is no: and the chapter illustrates how much more could be done, using powers which are already available within the remit of the Scottish government. "

 

download this paper

He clearly has an amount of room to be critical in, as the article you linked to was also that.

But he mentions being in a meeting with the Treasury about the fiscal framework too - and he wasn't there as Joe (jock? P) Public.