The Dirty Independence Question

[russycarps]

Yes the deficit might fall from £15bn to £14bn if you're really lucky.

LOL!

[eFestivals]

13 hours ago, LJS said:

I'm not quite sure how you draw that conclusion. There have only been 4 polls since Brexit, 3 of which showed a lead for Indy and 1 which showed a lead for Nindy. All leads were fairly narrow (4-6%) so I would suggest its a bit early for any conclusions to be drawn

Only one of those polls has a decent methodology, can you guess which one?

Not only that, the first three polls were immediately after the vote when the whole of the UK was in a bit of a panic. The fourth poll is the one where a less-paniced and more considered view has been taken, as it would be over another indy vote.

It's not too early to draw the conclusion that the brexit vote - note, "vote" - has not caused the large bounce in indy support that some claimed it would.

And that's not really so surprising, when Scotland's pro-EU vote was smaller than Scotland's pro-indy vote.

13 hours ago, LJS said:

I aws interested to see that "on-shore" revenue rose by almost £2bn last year.

Yep, Scottish (onshore) growth grew at just about the same rate as whole-UK growth.

Which is a bit inconvenient for the myth that the UK approach fucks over Scotland.

In fact, Sturgeon spent yesterday trying to tell you just how well that UK approach does for Scotland, pointing out that Scotland is the most successful part of the UK after London - and given that another part of her (and your) argument is that the UK holding 'the economic levers' is bad for Scotland when the facts show it's not, her (and your) gripe can only be that the UK is stopping Scotland from performing exceptionally.

Fancy that, a nationalist claiming exceptionalism.

All you need to do now is tell us all why Scots are exceptional, with performance above all other humans.

 

13 hours ago, LJS said:

Next year "off-shore revenue can't realistically fall any lower (i was £60million last year) so if Scotland is able to grow it's "on-shore" revenue by a similar amount, it is likely to see the (GERS) deficit start to fall. 

Nope.

If Scottish growth continues to about-mirror UK growth - as it has done in the latest GERS compared to the previous GERS - then the deficit gap doesn't close, it remains the same.

That deficit gap only gets to close if Scotland grows its economy faster than whole-UK does.

The deficit gap (excluding oil) is a constant (adjusted for inflation) £9bn over 30 years.

And guess what that constant gap also means? It means that scoittish on-shore growth has about-mirrored UK onshore growth for all of that time too. The SNP haven't improved things despite claiming they would, the new powers Scotland has asked for haven't improved things despite the SNP claiming they would.

Here's your pro-indy argument, remember? Decisions taken in Scotland by Scots are inherently better than decisions taken in England for Scotland - so why can nothing of an improvement from those 'better decisions' be detected in the numbers?

Yes, Scotland doesn't have the full range of powers, but it still has many powers with which it can make a difference, especially if Scots are the exceptional your other lines of argument suggest - so why no difference?

Perhaps it's because Scots are not exceptional, that Scotland isn't mistreated by Westminster (I wish someone would mis-treat me with an extra £1400 a year), and you're talking a crock of shit?

----

Chokka's written two new articles especially for you, LJS. You can definitely something, in fact rather a lot, so you should have a read.

http://chokkablog.blogspot.co.uk/2016/08/wings-idiots-guide-for-gers-deniers.html
http://chokkablog.blogspot.co.uk/2016/08/gers-story-told-through-graphs.html

Edited August 25, 2016 by eFestivals

[LJS]

30 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Only one of those polls has a decent methodology, can you guess which one?

I'm not quite sure where you get that idea from. Their methodology is all good enough for prof. Cutrtiss's site. Maybe you know better than the prof?

30 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Not only that, the first three polls were immediately after the vote when the whole of the UK was in a bit of a panic. The fourth poll is the one where a less-paniced and more considered view has been taken, as it would be over another indy vote.

It's not too early to draw the conclusion that the brexit vote - note, "vote" - has not caused the large bounce in indy support that some claimed it would.

On the basis of one poll? 

30 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

And that's not really so surprising, when Scotland's pro-EU vote was smaller than Scotland's pro-indy vote.

Yep, Scottish (onshore) growth grew at just about the same rate as whole-UK growth.

Which is a bit inconvenient for the myth that the UK approach fucks over Scotland.

In fact, Sturgeon spent yesterday trying to tell you just how well that UK approach does for Scotland, pointing out that Scotland is the most successful part of the UK after London - and given that another part of her (and your) argument is that the UK holding 'the economic levers' is bad for Scotland when the facts show it's not, her (and your) gripe can only be that the UK is stopping Scotland from performing exceptionally.

Fancy that, a nationalist claiming exceptionalism.

All you need to do now is tell us all why Scots are exceptional, with performance above all other humans.

 

Nope.

If Scottish growth continues to about-mirror UK growth - as it has done in the latest GERS compared to the previous GERS - then the deficit gap doesn't close, it remains the same.

That deficit gap only gets to close if Scotland grows its economy faster than whole-UK does.

The deficit gap (excluding oil) is a constant (adjusted for inflation) £9bn over 30 years.

And guess what that constant gap also means? It means that scoittish on-shore growth has about-mirrored UK onshore growth for all of that time too. The SNP haven't improved things despite claiming they would, the new powers Scotland has asked for haven't improved things despite the SNP claiming they would.

Here's your pro-indy argument, remember? Decisions taken in Scotland by Scots are inherently better than decisions taken in England for Scotland - so why can nothing of an improvement from those 'better decisions' be detected in the numbers?

Yes, Scotland doesn't have the full range of powers, but it still has many powers with which it can make a difference, especially if Scots are the exceptional your other lines of argument suggest - so why no difference?

Perhaps it's because Scots are not exceptional, that Scotland isn't mistreated by Westminster (I wish someone would mis-treat me with an extra £1400 a year), and you're talking a crock of shit?

----

Chokka's written two new articles especially for you, LJS. You can definitely something, in fact rather a lot, so you should have a read.

http://chokkablog.blogspot.co.uk/2016/08/wings-idiots-guide-for-gers-deniers.html
http://chokkablog.blogspot.co.uk/2016/08/gers-story-told-through-graphs.html

I have & even he grudgingly concedes that if Scotland's revenue continued to grow then the deficit will fall. If you look at his lovely graphs of on shore revenue & government expenditure over the past few years,,you can see that revenue Chas consistently increased faster than expenditure.

[eFestivals]

1 hour ago, LJS said:

I'm not quite sure where you get that idea from. Their methodology is all good enough for prof. Cutrtiss's site. Maybe you know better than the prof?

the prof lists polls that have been done. That's not his endorsement of the methodology of those polls, just his acceptance of their existence.

Only one of those 4 pollsters has a record that matches how people have voted, the other 3 are all over the place. Those other three are exceedingly popular amongst the snippers tho, and it doesn't take a genius to work out why.

The most relevant point here tho is about when the polls were done - and a time of blind panic is not the time to measure considered opinion.

 

1 hour ago, LJS said:

On the basis of one poll?

OK, OK, you have a point here. It's just one poll.

But there's not other polls saying the opposite to back up the strong expectations of some of an indy bounce, that caused someone (two, actually) to talk about how another indyref was "highly likely".

So at the moment the facts back up what i said, and not how you'd like things to be. Never mind, eh?

 

1 hour ago, LJS said:

I have & even he grudgingly concedes that if Scotland's revenue continued to grow then the deficit will fall. If you look at his lovely graphs of on shore revenue & government expenditure over the past few years,,you can see that revenue Chas consistently increased faster than expenditure.

Revenue increasing faster than expenditure is the inescapable mathematical result of expenditure cuts in a time of economic growth.

That's not a Scottish success, it's just maths. FFS.

But if you wish to take that as a success, it makes you an advocate of cuts in Scottish spending. Is that what you are now?

I could point out that the revenues increased faster than expenditure for England too - and by a greater amount.

And if the numbers i encountered everywhere yesterday are correct*, the England deficit is now running at 1.8% while Scotland is at 9.5% - meaning that England is now suffering cuts *ONLY* for the benefit of SWNI. Just think how raving-mad snippers would be if it was suffering cuts to benefit just-England, while there's no noise to be heard down here.

(* I'll admit to having my doubts on those numbers, as they claimed a Welsh deficit as great as Scotland's, which I'm not sure is the case ... but if I go with W&NI numbers I'm more comfortable with, the English deficit still comes in at less than the magic 3% 'sustainable deficit')

Scotland's deficit will keep falling for all of the time that (real world, adjusted for inflation) cuts are being made to Scotland's expenditure (which is done by the UK govt via the block grant for Scotland), providing that Scotland's growth is around the UK average levels - but what will not reduce is the deficit gap, that £9Bn a year of money that comes via Barnett.

That £9bn deficit gap has been a constant (excluding oil revenues) for the last 35 years, and it will continue at that level for all the while scotland remains addicted to the Barnett money.

The only way out of your hated dependence is to stop being dependent - with the consequences to your personal wealth and to Scotland's poor that would cause. You're welcome to ask the UK govt to cease the Barnett money if you wish.

PS: one of the major reasons why Scottish growth has remained strong is because Scotland's growth is not dependent on the state of the Scottish economy and is instead sustained via the Barnett money which keeps on flowing to Scotland in all Scottish circumstances. If the Barnett money had never existed, the Scottish economy would be far less steady year-on-year than it is.

Edited August 25, 2016 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

I'm starting to see lots in Scotland refer to the indy campaign as 'the People's Republic of Glasgow' (or similar) in the last month or so - giving a strong suggestion that support for indy is falling away elsewhere in Scotland whilst it rises in Glasgow.

I've no way of knowing how true that might be, so I'm wondering if any Scots reading here can tell me their impressions of how true that might be?

Edited August 25, 2016 by eFestivals

[LJS]

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

I'm starting to see lots in Scotland refer to the indy campaign as 'the People's Republic of Glasgow' (or similar) in the last month or so - giving a strong suggestion that support for indy is falling away elsewhere in Scotland whilst it rises in Glasgow.

I've no way of knowing how true that might be, so I'm wondering if any Scots reading here can tell me their impressions of how true that might be?

Nae idea. Glasgow certainly voted yes & along with Dundee vies for the title of yes city... & it is of course the most wonderful place in the universe. Other than that, I guess it's all just interweb nonsense.

[eFestivals]

30 minutes ago, LJS said:

Other than that, I guess it's all just interweb nonsense.

I'd say it's a bit more than simply that, even if what I've seen is vastly out of proportion to what's happening on the ground.

Cos even if it's a myth, it's a change of narrative in an arena where myths and narrative are playing a stronger part than real facts.

And the narrative is changing - albeit often slowly - also for other things. GERS yesterday had plenty of the same old bollocks of "GERS is meaningless for an indy Scotland" trotted out by the usual suspects*, but it's failing to wash much more than was the case less than 6 months ago with the last GERS.

(*I'm glad to see you've resisted this time LJS, have you wised up?)

 

[LJS]

2 hours ago, eFestivals said:

I'd say it's a bit more than simply that, even if what I've seen is vastly out of proportion to what's happening on the ground.

Cos even if it's a myth, it's a change of narrative in an arena where myths and narrative are playing a stronger part than real facts.

And the narrative is changing - albeit often slowly - also for other things. GERS yesterday had plenty of the same old bollocks of "GERS is meaningless for an indy Scotland" trotted out by the usual suspects*, but it's failing to wash much more than was the case less than 6 months ago with the last GERS.

(*I'm glad to see you've resisted this time LJS, have you wised up?)

 

Not really. I just feel we've covered that ground adequately in the past. So I thought I'd go with the fact that even if you accept GERS at face value, there is a clear narrowing of the gap between onshore revenue & expenditure. If that trend continues it will reduce Scotland's notional deficit to a manageable level in a few years 

Edited August 25, 2016 by LJS

[eFestivals]

38 minutes ago, LJS said:

Not really. I just feel we've covered that ground adequately in the past.

And yet you cannot grasp that the deficit is the difference between revenues and spending.

The deficit cannot be changed by the fact of indy, the deficit can only be changed by narrowing the gap between revenues and spending - by either increasing revenues (taxes) &/or by cutting spending.

Yes, i know "an independent Scotland can make different tax and spending choices" but that only becomes meaningful if you show us what tax will rise &/or what spending will be cut to cover the short-fall.

 

Quote

So I thought I'd go with the fact that even if you accept GERS at face value, there is a clear narrowing of the gap between onshore revenue & expenditure.

I'm enjoying your endorsement and celebration of George Osborne's success.

It's yet another of these things you've done the one-eighty on.

You're pointing out that (oil excluded) Scotland's economy has grown by just about the same as the UK average (tho actually, a little less) while Sturgeon doesn't (in your own claims) have the levers to make an economic difference (so it must be Gidiot) and whilst enjoying the support that £9Bn of Barnett money gives to the Scottish economy and protects it from the more-violent economic fluctuations Scotland's economy would have if it stood alone.

And with such strong growth in a place where the SG doesn't have the necessary levers, all the myths about a Scotland abandoned by Westminster are up in smoke.

 

Quote

If that trend continues it will reduce Scotland's notional deficit to a manageable level in a few years 

Erm, I reckon you stay away from claims that require a small understanding of maths.

I'll start with the "a few years" bit. We're 9 years into "massive" tory cuts, that are just one-third the size of Scotland's extra-deficit-problem, and we're only about half way there. A "few years" of growth would require (roughly) eighteen times the growth as Osborne's "massive" cuts.

Secondly, the deficit wasn't reduced - it's just about the same as it ever was. "If that trend continues" there will be fuck-all meaningful change in Scotland's deficit position "in a few years".

Edited August 25, 2016 by eFestivals

[LJS]

3 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

And yet you cannot grasp that the deficit is the difference between revenues and spending.

The deficit cannot be changed by the fact of indy, the deficit can only be changed by narrowing the gap between revenues and spending - by either increasing revenues (taxes) &/or by cutting spending.

Yes, i know "an independent Scotland can make different tax and spending choices" but that only becomes meaningful if you show us what tax will rise &/or what spending will be cut to cover the short-fall.

 

I'm enjoying your endorsement and celebration of George Osborne's success.

It's yet another of these things you've done the one-eighty on.

You're pointing out that (oil excluded) Scotland's economy has grown by just about the same as the UK average (tho actually, a little less) while Sturgeon doesn't (in your own claims) have the levers to make an economic difference (so it must be Gidiot) and whilst enjoying the support that £9Bn of Barnett money gives to the Scottish economy and protects it from the more-violent economic fluctuations Scotland's economy would have if it stood alone.

And with such strong growth in a place where the SG doesn't have the necessary levers, all the myths about a Scotland abandoned by Westminster are up in smoke.

 

Erm, I reckon you stay away from claims that require a small understanding of maths.

I'll start with the "a few years" bit. We're 9 years into "massive" tory cuts, that are just one-third the size of Scotland's extra-deficit-problem, and we're only about half way there. A "few years" of growth would require (roughly) eighteen times the growth as Osborne's "massive" cuts.

Secondly, the deficit wasn't reduced - it's just about the same as it ever was. "If that trend continues" there will be fuck-all meaningful change in Scotland's deficit position "in a few years".

The increase in the deficit in the past couple of years is entirely due to the collapse in oil revenues. They can't go down any more. So, if on shore revenues continue to rise at a similar rate & spending stays the same (as it broadly has for the past 5 years or do) the deficit will fall quite quickly. If spending rises a little the reduction will be slower. 

Whether it's Osborne or sturgeon or just plain old Scottish exceptionalism that I'd responsible doesn't alter the simple maths.

[eFestivals]

22 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Scotland's economy has grown by just about the same as the UK average (tho actually, a little less)

Just a further comment on what i said here.

Sturgeon said yesterday something about 'the underlying fundamentals are strong' - and to some extent she's right, cos it's managed that growth at a time when the on-shore sector of oil (all oil but the extraction profit taxes) was taking a big hit because of the fall in the oil price.

There's an amount of payback for that hit via the reduced cost of oil for anyone buying and the money that frees up to spend elsewhere, but I don't think it's over-bigging it to say that if the oil price had remained stable Scotland would have (just) outperformed the UK average in the GERS just released - tho it's also suffered a lower public funding cut than rUK.

In not many years from now the deficit will take a sizable reduction when the oil price has bounced back - but it's never going to hit previous heights (£3bn oil money in a single year will be a great result, as will be an average of £2Bn; an average of £1.5bn is more likely), tho with everyone having noted this zero year it'll be more than a generation before wise people will trust it as an essential source of Scotland's funding. The SNP's impossible task is to make an economic case that can breech the on-shore deficit gap - impossible because the Barnett money ensures it can't close.

Edited August 25, 2016 by eFestivals

[LJS]

3 hours ago, eFestivals said:

Just a further comment on what i said here.

Sturgeon said yesterday something about 'the underlying fundamentals are strong' - and to some extent she's right, cos it's managed that growth at a time when the on-shore sector of oil (all oil but the extraction profit taxes) was taking a big hit because of the fall in the oil price.

There's an amount of payback for that hit via the reduced cost of oil for anyone buying and the money that frees up to spend elsewhere, but I don't think it's over-bigging it to say that if the oil price had remained stable Scotland would have (just) outperformed the UK average in the GERS just released - tho it's also suffered a lower public funding cut than rUK.

In not many years from now the deficit will take a sizable reduction when the oil price has bounced back - but it's never going to hit previous heights (£3bn oil money in a single year will be a great result, as will be an average of £2Bn; an average of £1.5bn is more likely), tho with everyone having noted this zero year it'll be more than a generation before wise people will trust it as an essential source of Scotland's funding. The SNP's impossible task is to make an economic case that can breech the on-shore deficit gap - impossible because the Barnett money ensures it can't close.

For an independent Scotland what matters is that it can reduce the deficit to a manageable level. I have demonstrated that that is not impossible. Whether the rUK runs a bigger or smaller deficit or even a surplus is irrelevant. 

[eFestivals]

4 hours ago, LJS said:

even if you accept GERS at face value, there is a clear narrowing of the gap between onshore revenue & expenditure.

Wrong. Look below.

 

48 minutes ago, LJS said:

For an independent Scotland what matters is that it can reduce the deficit to a manageable level. I have demonstrated that that is not impossible.

What you've demonstrated is that you don't understand what the deficit is or what's happening with it.

GERS 2014-15: Excluding North Sea revenue, was a deficit of £13.7 billion (9.8 per cent of GDP).
http://www.gov.scot/Publications/2016/03/3692

GERS 2015-16: Excluding North Sea revenue, was a deficit of £14.9 billion (10.1 per cent of GDP).
http://www.gov.scot/Publications/2016/08/2132

That's not a shrinking deficit, that's a growing deficit - and by more than it first appears, because the whole-UK deficit has reduced.

 

41 minutes ago, LJS said:

Whether the rUK runs a bigger or smaller deficit or even a surplus is irrelevant. 

it's not against the claim that Westminster fucks over Scotland. I don't know many people who'd think a free £9bn every year was a fuck-over. Just you and comfy in fact.

Meanwhile, that £9bn locks-in the Scottish deficit, it can't be escaped, not by you and your magic, and not by the SNP - they're the ones that locked it in, and they didn't even tell you and keep on selling you the lie (which you fall for, every time) that they'll deal with it so you can be indy.

Put simply, you've been mugged and you've not even noticed.

You can wake up anytime, before you vote Scotland to austerity max and disaster for your initial indy dreams, or you can wake up after, in hell.

[LJS]

10 hours ago, eFestivals said:

the prof lists polls that have been done. That's not his endorsement of the methodology of those polls, just his acceptance of their existence.

Only one of those 4 pollsters has a record that matches how people have voted, the other 3 are all over the place. Those other three are exceedingly popular amongst the snippers tho, and it doesn't take a genius to work out why.

The most relevant point here tho is about when the polls were done - and a time of blind panic is not the time to measure considered opinion.

 

OK, OK, you have a point here. It's just one poll.

But there's not other polls saying the opposite to back up the strong expectations of some of an indy bounce, that caused someone (two, actually) to talk about how another indyref was "highly likely".

So at the moment the facts back up what i said, and not how you'd like things to be. Never mind, eh?

I don't intend to spend much more time on polls because my honest view is that there is no conclusive evidence either way.  I will simply say that all 3 polling companies (either survation or populus has done 2 polls) show an increase in support for Indy post Brexit.  What does that prove? It proves that depending how you look at results you can arrive at different conclusions. I am happy to wait & see how things pan out without making rash claims at this stage.  

 

[LJS]

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

Wrong. Look below.

really?

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

 

What you've demonstrated is that you don't understand what the deficit is or what's happening with it.

Why do you always feel the need to insult, O course i know what a deficit is  - I also know what an arrogant twat is!!!

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

GERS 2014-15: Excluding North Sea revenue, was a deficit of £13.7 billion (9.8 per cent of GDP).
http://www.gov.scot/Publications/2016/03/3692

GERS 2015-16: Excluding North Sea revenue, was a deficit of £14.9 billion (10.1 per cent of GDP).
http://www.gov.scot/Publications/2016/08/2132

That's not a shrinking deficit, that's a growing deficit - and by more than it first appears, because the whole-UK deficit has reduced.

I would prefer not to base my claims on one year - i took the last 5  years & I took my figures from the guru himself - 

http://chokkablog.blogspot.co.uk/2016/08/gers-story-told-through-graphs.html

Kevin includes 2 detailed graphs  - one of onshore revenue

Now, as i understand it, the deficit is the difference between income & expenditure

which goes like this

year  deficit (£Bn)

11-12      19.5

12-13      19.9

13-14       17.2

14-15       16.1

15-16        14.9

 

Has Kevin got his numbers wrong?  Surely not?

 

 

 

& one of Scottish public spending 

Now, as i understand it, the deficit is the difference between income & expenditure

which goes like this

year  deficit (£Bn)

11-12      19.5

12-13      19.9

13-14       17.2

14-15       16.1

15-16        14.9

 

Has Kevin got his numbers wrong?  Surely not?

 

 

 

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

 

it's not against the claim that Westminster fucks over Scotland. I don't know many people who'd think a free £9bn every year was a fuck-over. Just you and comfy in fact.

Saying that being part of the UK is not the best option for Scotland is not the same thing as saying Westminster is fuckking us over. 

 

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

Meanwhile, that £9bn locks-in the Scottish deficit,

Struggling with the Maths Neil? What if The UK runs a £9bn surplus? ... oops 

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

it can't be escaped, not by you and your magic, and not by the SNP - they're the ones that locked it in, and they didn't even tell you and keep on selling you the lie (which you fall for, every time) that they'll deal with it so you can be indy.

Put simply, you've been mugged and you've not even noticed.

Ain't been mugged 

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

You can wake up anytime, before you vote Scotland to austerity max and disaster for your initial indy dreams, or you can wake up after, in hell.

 

[eFestivals]

11 hours ago, LJS said:

Has Kevin got his numbers wrong?  Surely not?

Oh my fucking god.

The numbers are right,  Your understanding of the numbers is not.

 

 

 

[eFestivals]

11 hours ago, LJS said:

Saying that being part of the UK is not the best option for Scotland is not the same thing as saying Westminster is fuckking us over.

But the meme used to be that Westminster treated Scotland poorly/badly. A whole campaign was based on that, with you cheering it along loudly.

Have you given that one up (in light of the facts? ) to invent a new meme that you hope is more sustainable in the sorts of minds that can't get their head around what a deficit is?

I find it hard to see how 16% poorer is the best option for Scotland. Perhaps you can tell me why poorer is better?

[LJS]

4 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Oh my fucking god.

The numbers are right,  Your understanding of the numbers is not.

 

 

 

Help my understanding then, oh wise one. 

[eFestivals]

11 hours ago, LJS said:

Struggling with the Maths Neil? What if The UK runs a £9bn surplus? ... oops 

OMG - again.

If the UK runs a £9Bn surplus, Scotland's share (by population) is less than £1bn if that surplus is equally distributed around the UK, which would leave Scotland with...?

£14Bn deficit.

[LJS]

2 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

But the meme used to be that Westminster treated Scotland poorly/badly. A whole campaign was based on that, with you cheering it along loudly.

My view is that being ruled from Westminster is not the best arrangement for Scotland. That is not because Westminster "fucks Scotland over" which would imply that they deliberately set out to disadvantage Scotland. I don't believe they generally do. 

Decisions taken to suit the UK as a whole do not always suit Scotland.

2 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Have you given that one up (in light of the facts? ) to invent a new meme that you hope is more sustainable in the sorts of minds that can't get their head around what a deficit is?

I find it hard to see how 16% poorer is the best option for Scotland. Perhaps you can tell me why poorer is better?

If we can continue to grow government revenue as we have done over the past few years, it's not an issue.

[LJS]

5 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

OMG - again.

If the UK runs a £9Bn surplus, Scotland's share (by population) is less than £1bn if that surplus is equally distributed around the UK, which would leave Scotland with...?

£14Bn deficit.

£14.9bn actually according to Kevin's graphs and my little table. So you still haven't told me where I am wrong.

[eFestivals]

11 hours ago, LJS said:

Ain't been mugged 

Then you'll have to tell me why it's intelligence and not mug-dom that has you not understanding that Scotland's on-shore deficit has grown and not reduced, and has you arguing against the plainest and clearest of facts.

I posted above (with links) the exact words of the Scottish Govt - the SNP - from the last two GERS, which in plain English state the growth in the Scottish on-shore deficit.

And you claim - as a fact - that it's shrunk.

With such intelligence applied to indy, it's no wonder it's so popular.

 

[eFestivals]

11 hours ago, LJS said:

Ain't been mugged 

 

You're not sleeping.

You're dead.from the neck upwards.

Edited August 26, 2016 by eFestivals

[LJS]

10 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Then you'll have to tell me why it's intelligence and not mug-dom that has you not understanding that Scotland's on-shore deficit has grown and not reduced, and has you arguing against the plainest and clearest of facts.

I posted above (with links) the exact words of the Scottish Govt - the SNP - from the last two GERS, which in plain English state the growth in the Scottish on-shore deficit.

And you claim - as a fact - that it's shrunk.

With such intelligence applied to indy, it's no wonder it's so popular.

So, you've quoted figures for 2 years which appear to show a 1year increase in in onshore deficit. I have quoted figures from the guru of anti-Nat graphs & tables which appear to show the on shore deficit reducing. I have no idea why the numbers don't tally. I know gers figures are often revised after the event  so maybe one set are pre revision? Or maybe Kevin's got it wrong?

Meanwhile, I am still waiting patiently for you to tell me where I have misinterpreted Kevin's graphs.

[eFestivals]

11 hours ago, LJS said:

Now, as i understand it, the deficit is the difference between income & expenditure

The deficit value is the difference between income and expenditure.

The deficit percentage - which is referred to as 'the deficit' - is that deficit value as a proportion of GDP.
(When GDP has shrunk - as it has, by around £5Bn - the deficit has increased if everything else remains equal)

A number (such as the deficit value) is meaningless in isolation.  If you have a debt on £1M, it's un-payable if your income is £10k but is not a bind if your income is £100M

Which is precisely why the deficit value cannot be considered in isolation, and instead needs to be considered against GDP, as a proportion of it.

The SG/SNP don't include the deficit as a percentage of GDP for no reason. It's that percentage which makes the value meaningful.

Otherwise, the UK's far greater deficit value of (approx) £75Bn would mean the UK is 5 times deeper in the financial shit than Scotland, when the reality is that Scotland is five times deeper in the shit than the UK is.

----

The factors around oil make you definitely right to regard the numbers in this GERS as decent in the circumstances, but they are not what you've claimed above.

And further: the improvement in the deficit value is the direct result of cuts made by Westminster.

 

Edited August 26, 2016 by eFestivals