The Dirty Independence Question

[LJS]

6 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

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 means the value meaningful.

----

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.

 

This is one of the funniest posts I have ever seen from you.

    "A number (such as the deficit value) is meaningless in isolation"

Now who constantly posts fed cut numbers in isolation? So we can disregard about 80% of your posts on Indy.

So irrelevant as it may be, do Kevin's graphs show a decrease in Scotland's onshore deficit?

[LJS]

Kevin says...

The Scottish Expenditure and Revenue Scotland (GERS) figures for 2015-16 were published this week. Despite some of the headlines that followed, they were great news for Scotland.

 

Scotland’s onshore economy (as measured by the taxes we raise before including North Sea Oil income) grew in real terms by 3.6% in 2015-16 and is shown to have steadily grown by about 2.2% a year for the last 6 years. Our total public spending also actually grew by 1.0% in real terms last year, despite the much moaned about “Westminster austerity”. These aren’t the figures of an economy that’s suffering.

[eFestivals]

PS: if you wish to consider things over the longer-term for the on-shore deficit, you can see that it's (on average) just about static, at that 10% of GDP.

That kind Mr Hauge has done you a graph, looky....

 

[LJS]

As it is deficit as% of GDP that matters, Kevin has a graph for that. The green line is onshore.

[eFestivals]

2 minutes ago, LJS said:

Kevin says...

The Scottish Expenditure and Revenue Scotland (GERS) figures for 2015-16 were published this week. Despite some of the headlines that followed, they were great news for Scotland.

 

Scotland’s onshore economy (as measured by the taxes we raise before including North Sea Oil income) grew in real terms by 3.6% in 2015-16 and is shown to have steadily grown by about 2.2% a year for the last 6 years. Our total public spending also actually grew by 1.0% in real terms last year, despite the much moaned about “Westminster austerity”. These aren’t the figures of an economy that’s suffering.

 

Yep, there wasn't the collapse in on-shore revenues that might have been expected via the collapse of the oil industry - it's certainly something to be thankful about, and shows that the Scottish economy is more diverse than just oil.

Yet even so, the growth in the on-shore economy was lesser than the whole-UK growth - which is why you've slipped even further behind - and Scotland has a *very* significant chunk of income (from Barnett) that has absolutely no dependence on what happens within the Scottish economy, and so holds the Scottish economy up at a rate it couldn't achieve alone.

And so ultimately, Kev's "great news for Scotland" is based within his acceptance and welcoming of the Barnett money - money that you don't accept, and therefore your consideration of what is 'great' should be formed on a different consideration to Kev's.

But here you are welcoming Kev's take that the Barnett money is a good thing for Scotland.

Kev and me have a consistency that's absent from your own considerations. You're a magpie that finds the shiny thing in anything to claim it as a SNP success, whether that's really the case or not.

[LJS]

11 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

 

Yep, there wasn't the collapse in on-shore revenues that might have been expected via the collapse of the oil industry - it's certainly something to be thankful about, and shows that the Scottish economy is more diverse than just oil.

Yet even so, the growth in the on-shore economy was lesser than the whole-UK growth - which is why you've slipped even further behind - and Scotland has a *very* significant chunk of income (from Barnett) that has absolutely no dependence on what happens within the Scottish economy, and so holds the Scottish economy up at a rate it couldn't achieve alone.

And so ultimately, Kev's "great news for Scotland" is based within his acceptance and welcoming of the Barnett money - money that you don't accept, and therefore your consideration of what is 'great' should be formed on a different consideration to Kev's.

But here you are welcoming Kev's take that the Barnett money is a good thing for Scotland.

Kev and me have a consistency that's absent from your own considerations. You're a magpie that finds the shiny thing in anything to claim it as a SNP success, whether that's really the case or not.

I have not mentioned the SNP.

Shiny thing or not, I take it we can agree that according to gers & Kevin, Scotland's onshore deficit I'd steadily reducing. This is all my original post was claiming. I'm glad you seem to be agreeing with me now.

[eFestivals]

17 minutes ago, LJS said:

I have not mentioned the SNP.

Shiny thing or not, I take it we can agree that according to gers & Kevin, Scotland's onshore deficit I'd steadily reducing. This is all my original post was claiming. I'm glad you seem to be agreeing with me now.

Deficits are expressed as percentage of GDP, so it's not reducing.

The error in understanding is yours. You're talking about the govt budget balance, rather than the deficit - and as you love to tell us, the SG runs a balanced budget (tho because of Barnett, not because of any SG super-skills).

The important thing is the contextual 'ability to pay' and not physical size - which is why the UK's far greater 'deficit' of £75Bn is a smaller 'deficit' than Scotland's of £15Bn.

The contextual 'ability to pay' - the actual deficit - is arrived at by giving the budget balance a context against the whole economy.

Edited August 26, 2016 by eFestivals

[LJS]

22 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Deficits are expressed as percentage of GDP, so it's not reducing.

Onshore deficit as a % of GDP.is reducing as demonstrated by Kevin's graph that I posted. So either Kevin is wrong  or you are wrong.

Quote

The error in understanding is yours. You're talking about the govt budget balance, rather than the deficit - and as you love to tell us, the SG runs a balanced budget (tho because of Barnett, not because of any SG super-skills).

I have never mentioned government budget balance. I have clearly been talking about revenue & expenditure as estimated by gers. If you haven't understood that, you even more stupid than you think I am.

Quote

The important thing is the contextual 'ability to pay' and not physical size - which is why the UK's far greater 'deficit' of £75Bn is a smaller 'deficit' than Scotland's of £15Bn.

Correct. I never suggested otherwise.

Quote

The contextual 'ability to pay' - the actual deficit - is arrived at by giving the budget balance a context against the whole economy.

Where did "contextual ability to pay" come from? Did a squirrel bring it.

So to sum up, Neil as usual, refuses to admit he was wrong.

Meanwhile I still await the explanation  of how I misinterpreted Kevin's figures. 

Edited August 26, 2016 by LJS

[eFestivals]

14 minutes ago, LJS said:

Onshore deficit as a % of GDP.is reducing as demonstrated by Kevin's graph that I posted. So either Kevin is wrong  or you are wrong.

Why not check what GERS says for the last two years?

I posted the exact wording and the links. Off you go.

[eFestivals]

15 minutes ago, LJS said:

I have never mentioned government budget balance.

you did when you said the deficit was revenue minus expenditure.

It's not that, it's "revenue minus expenditure expressed as a percentage of GDP".

[eFestivals]

42 minutes ago, LJS said:

Where did "contextual ability to pay" come from? Did a squirrel bring it.

It's the part where GDP comes into it.

As I said, a debt of £1M is a huge debt if you only earn £10k, but it's not if earn £10M.

The impact of any debt is not the size of the debt, it's the ability to service or pay-off that debt. Context!

 

42 minutes ago, LJS said:

So to sum up, Neil as usual, refuses to admit he was wrong.

Meanwhile I still await the explanation  of how I misinterpreted Kevin's figures.

 

My apologies - I've mis-read GERS - but it still doesn't say what you think it does.

2014-15: Excluding North Sea revenue, was a deficit of £13.7 billion (9.8 per cent of GDP).
2015-16: Excluding North Sea revenue, was a deficit of £12.7 billion (8.6 per cent of GDP).

It looks like an improvement for Scotland, doesn't it? However, here's the UK figures....

In 2014-15 net borrowing is forecast at £88 billion (4.9% of GDP)
In 2015-16  net borrowing was £74.9 billion (official GDP not yet available, but latest GERS gives it as 2.2%)
(from  http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/334/uk-economy/uk-national-debt/)

The improvement in Scotland is due to the improvement in the UK figures and not any meaningful improvement with Scotland's "deficit gap" (as Kev's graph I posted above clearly shows!) - because the deficit gap is maintained by Barnett.

 

Edited August 26, 2016 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

33 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

[UK numbers, not scottish]

(4.9% of GDP)

(official GDP not yet available, but latest GERS gives it as 2.2%)

I've just noticed that GERS 2014-15 gives UK deficit for that year as 3.3%

(and i'm making this comment for consistency; note how this 3.3% number works against me [compared to the 4.9%] trying to make any 'SNP baaad' point)

So, using those GERS numbers for the UK deficit, the UK deficit has reduced by 1.1%, while GERS shows the Scottish deficit having reduced by 1.2%.

Can you notice how that makes the improvement in Scotland very very minimal? Just 0.1% ... and yet 6%(ish) of Scottish GDP revenues comes via Barnett.

It's also worth noting that Scottish expenditure had a 0.2% benefit over UK expenditure (the block grant increased by 1%; UK average was 0.8%).

You said the improvement this year would see the Scottish deficit gone "in a few years" if the same rate of change of maintained. Given that the Scottish improvement was (on the most generous basis, ignoring the Barnett effect and ignoring the 0.2% expenditure benefit) just 0.1%.

So, you're talking about 60 years for that growth to close the deficit gap - but only if the tiny difference made this year was sustained for all years of that 60 years, and that ain't gonna happen.

I've happily admitted that within context of the oil collapse, these are (to use kev's choice of word) "great" numbers for Scotland.

Now, hows about you being happy to admit that your "a few years" is actually 60 years?

 

Edited August 26, 2016 by eFestivals

[LJS]

38 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

you did when you said the deficit was revenue minus expenditure.

Which it is.

38 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

It's not that, it's "revenue minus expenditure expressed as a percentage of GDP".

There are a number of ways to express a deficit. You can express it in cash terms or % GDP terms. Neither is righter or wronger than the other & both show Scotland's position improving.

[eFestivals]

11 minutes ago, LJS said:

Which it is.

Nope. The budget balance is absent of context. It needs to put against GDP to properly express the impact.

11 minutes ago, LJS said:

There are a number of ways to express a deficit. You can express it in cash terms or % GDP terms. Neither is righter or wronger than the other 

One shows context and the other doesn't.

So when trying to talk meaningfully about Scotland's financial position - rather than selecting what can be presented as the most advantageous for a pre-formed position - only the percentage form is meaningful.

 

Quote

both show Scotland's position improving.

True - tho they also show that if this year's improvement were maintained (which it won't be) it would take 60 years to close the deficit gap.

Not the "few years" you said.

Edited August 26, 2016 by eFestivals

[LJS]

54 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Nope. The budget balance is absent of context. It needs to put against GDP to properly express the impact.

One shows context and the other doesn't.

So when trying to talk meaningfully about Scotland's financial position - rather than selecting what can be presented as the most advantageous for a pre-formed position - only the percentage form is meaningful.

 

True - tho they also show that if this year's improvement were maintained (which it won't be) it would take 60 years to close the deficit gap.

Not the "few years" you said.

There are plenty of question marks over the validity of GDP as a good measure. And since the onshore deficit fell by at least £1bn last year, your 60 years is very very pessimistic (or your maths is shit)

[eFestivals]

12 minutes ago, LJS said:

There are plenty of question marks over the validity of GDP as a good measure. And since the onshore deficit fell by at least £1bn last year, your 60 years is very very pessimistic (or your maths is shit)

The goalposts move as GDP moves.

As I demonstrated above, there was only an improvement of around 0.1% in Scotland's deficit-gap position. The other 1.1% is the improvement in whole-UK position, the 'success' of Gidiot and not Scotland.

That 1.1% improvement will come to an end with the end of the UK's deficit reduction efforts (which will happen sometime soon-ish).

And when it does, i'm guessing you'll cheer the end of the cuts but make no reference to the fact that Scotland's improving financial position has come to an end.

You'll be left with a 6%(ish) deficit, and no improvement to it year on year.

Edited August 26, 2016 by eFestivals

[LJS]

2 hours ago, eFestivals said:

The goalposts move as GDP moves.

As I demonstrated above, there was only an improvement of around 0.1% in Scotland's deficit-gap position. The other 1.1% is the improvement in whole-UK position, the 'success' of Gidiot and not Scotland.

That 1.1% improvement will come to an end with the end of the UK's deficit reduction efforts (which will happen sometime soon-ish).

And when it does, i'm guessing you'll cheer the end of the cuts but make no reference to the fact that Scotland's improving financial position has come to an end.

You'll be left with a 6%(ish) deficit, and no improvement to it year on year.

Well 6% is certainly an improvement on anything you've claimed before. And since our onshore deficit was 20% 5 years ago, (edit: my error-16%) getting it down to 6% would be a remarkable achievement. Whilst it may become harder to reduce it further, I'd be happy to cross that bridge when we come to it.

For now  I am happy that you, me & Kevin all agree that Scotland's economic position is improving. 

Edited August 26, 2016 by LJS

[eFestivals]

1 hour ago, LJS said:

Well 6% is certainly an improvement on anything you've claimed before.

That would be because I can't recall every having stated the deficit gap in percentage terms. I've always talked about the missing billions, remember?

 

1 hour ago, LJS said:

And since our onshore deficit was 20% 5 years ago, (edit: my error-16%) getting it down to 6% would be a remarkable achievement.

Oh my fuckin' gawd. Again.

What was the UK deficit in that same year?

Try doing the simple sum: Scottish deficit % minus UK deficit percentage equals Scottish deficit-gap percentage, and do it for a number of years.

And let me know what the 'remarkable' difference is for that deficit-gap thru the years.
(a clue is in that graph of Kev's I posted)

 

1 hour ago, LJS said:

Whilst it may become harder to reduce it further, I'd be happy to cross that bridge when we come to it.

A change of 0.1% in the deficit gap - which is where the problem is, cos it's not changing by any meaningful extent - on one occasion isn't of any significance in reduction terms.

It would become of slight significance if it turned into a trend, but with being such a small difference it's a fair assumption at this point that it's merely a part of a good years/bad years cycle and not a trend.

All the same it's good news, a positive that might have been a negative. I'm not knocking the improvement, however small.

I'm knocking your take that in "a few years" everything will be rosy. There's absolutely fuck all in those numbers that can be intelligently understood as meaning that.

 

1 hour ago, LJS said:

For now  I am happy that you, me & Kevin all agree that Scotland's economic position is improving. 

That's a good thing, tho it's remarkable just how determined you are to consider it a significant improvement when it's not.

[LJS]

7 hours ago, eFestivals said:

That would be because I can't recall every having stated the deficit gap in percentage terms. I've always talked about the missing billions, remember?

Of course I remember, although a leading authority on these things has now confirmed that that is a meaningless way to state these things and the only way to present a deficit is as a percentage of GDP...

Quote

So when trying to talk meaningfully about Scotland's financial position - rather than selecting what can be presented as the most advantageous for a pre-formed position - only the percentage form is meaningful.

Quote

 

Oh my fuckin' gawd. Again.

What was the UK deficit in that same year?

Couldn't care less. I'm trying (successfully) to demonstrate that there is a possible route out of  Scotland's apparent deficit nightmare. In the context of a debate about the viability of an independent Scotland, the rUK's deficit is entirely irrelevant. All that is required is for Scotland to reduce it's deficit to a manageable level. We are well on the way to that.

Quote

Try doing the simple sum: Scottish deficit % minus UK deficit percentage equals Scottish deficit-gap percentage, and do it for a number of years.

You try doing the sums, Scotland's onshore  revenue is consistently increasing much faster than its expenditure  - hence the deficit is decreasing .. every year  this continues (which is of course not guaranteed) the ore viable Scottish independence will become. 

Quote

And let me know what the 'remarkable' difference is for that deficit-gap thru the years.
(a clue is in that graph of Kev's I posted)

I repeat, the gap is irrelevant. it's not a competition as to who can have the smallest deficit. The competition is for Scotland to demonstrate it has a manageable deficit. if that meant the rUK has a surplus, good luck to you. unfortunately you keep voting in Tory governments who will spunk the surplus on their rich mates.

Quote

 

A change of 0.1% in the deficit gap - which is where the problem is, cos it's not changing by any meaningful extent - on one occasion isn't of any significance in reduction terms.

No about the gap.

Quote

It would become of slight significance if it turned into a trend, but with being such a small difference it's a fair assumption at this point that it's merely a part of a good years/bad years cycle and not a trend.

Mind the gap

Quote

All the same it's good news, a positive that might have been a negative. I'm not knocking the improvement, however small.

Good. 

Quote

I'm knocking your take that in "a few years" everything will be rosy. There's absolutely fuck all in those numbers that can be intelligently understood as meaning that.

You've long argues that we should take oil out of the equation. i have & anyone intelligent can see that there is significant & sustained improvement in Scotland's economic position on that basis - at least according to GERS.

Quote

 

That's a good thing, tho it's remarkable just how determined you are to consider it a significant improvement when it's not.

Oh yes it is. 

Edited August 26, 2016 by LJS

[eFestivals]

9 hours ago, LJS said:

Couldn't care less. I'm trying (successfully) to demonstrate that there is a possible route out of  Scotland's apparent deficit nightmare.

You do care, and that's why you're (successfully) misunderstanding everything about the situation of your self-invented deficit nightmare.

The part of the deficit that Scotland is responsible for via what it chooses to spend is (mid/long term - occasional years don't count) not being reduced. It's been the same for 25+ years, and even a decade of the SNP in power hasn't changed it, cos the one and only realistic solution there is is not politically acceptable to Scots.

The fact of that deficit and its failure to be reduced isn't anything of bother to anyone but snippers tho. Your indy dream is dependent on there being a solution.

[eFestivals]

9 hours ago, LJS said:

You try doing the sums, Scotland's onshore  revenue is consistently increasing much faster than its expenditure  - hence the deficit is decreasing .. every year  this continues (which is of course not guaranteed) the ore viable Scottish independence will become. 

Revenue is increasing faster than expenditure because Westminster is (in real terms) cutting Scotland's money. FFS.

According to the (now out of date) Osborne plan, Westminster will stop cutting Scotland's money when the UK deficit has gone, at which point Scotland will have a 6%(ish) static deficit.

The only way to reduce it further will be for Scotland to cut spending further and to send some of the block grant money back.

According to chokka (if my memory is correct) that 6%(ish) deficit gap will require cuts in public spending of about 13% - far bigger than the total tory cuts so far and planned cuts.

Edited August 27, 2016 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

9 hours ago, LJS said:

I repeat, the gap is irrelevant. it's not a competition as to who can have the smallest deficit. The competition is for Scotland to demonstrate it has a manageable deficit. if that meant the rUK has a surplus, good luck to you. unfortunately you keep voting in Tory governments who will spunk the surplus on their rich mates.

The gap is relevant.

It's caused by Scotland spending 15%(ish) more on public services than the UK average. You don't even generate revenues at the UK average as yet to even begin to start closing the gap.

Scotland will demonstrate it has a managable deficit only after it's made massive cuts in spending. Good luck with that.

And I vote for increased social justice, always. Your last personal election vote was an endorsement of austerity while claiming it wasn't. It's laughable that you think you're on the higher moral ground.

Edited August 27, 2016 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

9 hours ago, LJS said:

You've long argues that we should take oil out of the equation. i have & anyone intelligent can see that there is significant & sustained improvement in Scotland's economic position on that basis - at least according to GERS.

As ever, you seize on the one chink of light and dismiss the existence of all inconvenient facts, so that you can pretend there's simple answers to complex problems.

Not only that, it requires the kind of double-speak that has you blame anything bad (like the existence of the deficit in the first place) on Westminster while crediting the SNP for any improvements (such as the one you're currently cheering).

[LJS]

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

As ever, you seize on the one chink of light and dismiss the existence of all inconvenient facts, so that you can pretend there's simple answers to complex problems.

Not only that, it requires the kind of double-speak that has you blame anything bad (like the existence of the deficit in the first place) on Westminster while crediting the SNP for any improvements (such as the one you're currently cheering).

I have not attributed credit to anyone. I am well aware that the total level of Scotland"s expenditure is controlled by Westminster. It's also debatable how much influence the Scottish government has on revenue. My point is that the onshore deficit is decreasing year on year. 

As you are well aware, I disagree with the policies the Tories have implemented to reduce the deficit ...however that is an argument for elsewhere & one we have covered on depth.

 

[eFestivals]

7 minutes ago, LJS said:

My point is that the onshore deficit is decreasing year on year. 

and my point is that that's caused by the cuts from Westminster - and so will end when the Westminster cuts do.

The Scottish onshore deficit reduction is happening only because of the UK deficit reduction. The clue is in the fact they're both dropping by about the same percentage each year.

You started off anti-cuts, the very reason you felt indy would be better, and end up celebrating cuts as a way to get you to indy.

It's another one hundred and eighty, and you're not playing darts.

Edited August 27, 2016 by eFestivals