The Dirty Independence Question

[eFestivals]

PS - to fridge....

I can (I'm not going to: google) pull out quotes from Sturgeon which...

1. explicitly admit that Scotland has the deficit stated in GERS.

2. that the deficit is the result of the higher cost of delivery of public services in Scotland, due to demographics and geography.

3. that if Scotland went indy today she'd have to cut like Westminster.did

So I'm wondering, if you're so smart and have all the answers, how come the person in biggest need of those answers isn't employing you - or someone with your viewpoint - to give her the answers she needs?

Even Salmond's 2014 lauded (ha!*) economic advisers didn't think it worked like that, which is why the 2014 white paper was all about the oil (to cover 16% of govt spending).

(* see back a few pages in this topic to see just how ignorant and uninformed at least one of those advisers - a Scottish professsor, no less - actually is).

The only vaguely-sensible answer to the deficit problem is the much-said "we'll grow the economy", but that hits the problem of the "dirty little secret of economics".....

Quote

Krugman: "let me tell you about a dirty little secret of economics — namely, that we don’t know very much about how to raise the long-run rate of economic growth...But once the economy is near full employment, further growth depends on raising output per worker. And while there are things that might help make that happen, the truth is that nobody knows how to conjure up rapid productivity gains."

Scotland can be Greece if it wants to be, just as Krugman says.

Edited September 20, 2016 by eFestivals

[LJS]

15 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

PS - to fridge....

I can (I'm not going to: google) pull out quotes from Sturgeon which...

1. explicitly admit that Scotland has the deficit stated in GERS.

2. that the deficit is the result of the higher cost of delivery of public services in Scotland, due to demographics and geography.

3. that if Scotland went indy today she'd have to cut like Westminster.did

So I'm wondering, if you're so smart and have all the answers, how come the person in biggest need of those answers isn't employing you - or someone with your viewpoint - to give her the answers she needs?

Even Salmond's 2014 lauded (ha!*) economic advisers didn't think it worked like that, which is why the 2014 white paper was all about the oil (to cover 16% of govt spending).

(* see back a few pages in this topic to see just how ignorant and uninformed at least one of those advisers - a Scottish professsor, no less - actually is).

The only vaguely-sensible answer to the deficit problem is the much-said "we'll grow the economy", but that hits the problem of the "dirty little secret of economics".....

Scotland can be Greece if it wants to be, just as Krugman says.

To quote your favourite expert...

"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."

That'll do for me.

[eFestivals]

7 minutes ago, LJS said:

To quote your favourite expert...

"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."

That'll do for me.

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.KD.ZG?end=2015&locations=GB&start=2015&view=bar

Scotland only improves its position if its growth is greater than whole-UK growth. It's not.

Yes, you've just had a good year, but a single year means very little, and the gain from it - to start to erode 'the deficit gap' - is so very small it might as well not exist.

As I've already pointed out, it would take more than 70 years for the growth of the last year to make up the shortfall that needs to be covered.

[LJS]

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.KD.ZG?end=2015&locations=GB&start=2015&view=bar

Scotland only improves its position if its growth is greater than whole-UK growth. It's not.

Yes, you've just had a good year, but a single year means very little, and the gain from it - to start to erode 'the deficit gap' - is so very small it might as well not exist.

T years, Neil.

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

As I've already pointed out, it would take more than 70 years for the growth of the last year to make up the shortfall that needs to be covered.

The "shortfall" is irrelevant  what is relevant is Scotland having a manageable deficit.

[LJS]

Should say 5 years ^^^

[eFestivals]

1 hour ago, LJS said:

Should say 5 years ^^^

Nope.

Care to give me the maths for that?

[LJS]

16 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Nope.

Care to give me the maths for that?

Sorry 6 years 

"steadily grown by about 2.2% a year for the last 6 years"

& it's Kevin's maths not mine.

[eFestivals]

3 minutes ago, LJS said:

Sorry 6 years 

"steadily grown by about 2.2% a year for the last 6 years"

& it's Kevin's maths not mine.

You're making a very silly mistake, because you've not taken the trouble to try and understand anything of what the words mean.

That quote in full:-
"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."

Unfortunately, it's not (just) the economy which needs to grow, it's govt revenues. The two things are not the same.

Now, how much of anything happening in Scotland is due to anything being led by Scotland...? Let's see what the same sources says....

 

Now, a smart person might notice the similarity of the whole-UK and Scottish trends.

Meanwhile, your leader says that Scotland's deficit is caused by its higher spending - and Scotland has yet to even match the average UK revenue raising.

The spending gap cos caused by the higher cost of services in Scotland is a gap you can't bridge - and only the terminally dumb would realistically think it could be done without cutting Scottish spending to average UK levels.

 

[LJS]

3 hours ago, eFestivals said:

You're making a very silly mistake, because you've not taken the trouble to try and understand anything of what the words mean.

That quote in full:-
"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."

Unfortunately, it's not (just) the economy which needs to grow, it's govt revenues. The two things are not the same.

No, your right, they're not. And as you can clearly see from big kev's quote, it's govt revenues he is talking about.

3 hours ago, eFestivals said:

Now, how much of anything happening in Scotland is due to anything being led by Scotland...?

I've not attributed responsibility for the growth in Scottish revenues to anyone. It's not who's responsible that matters. What does matter is that is is happening consistently.

3 hours ago, eFestivals said:

Let's see what the same sources says....

 

Now, a smart person might notice the similarity of the whole-UK and Scottish trends.

I never suggested otherwise. Another smart person might acknowledge the relentless upward trajectory of the green line.

Quote

Meanwhile, your leader says that Scotland's deficit is caused by its higher spending - and Scotland has yet to even match the average UK revenue raising.

So...?

Quote

The spending gap cos caused by the higher cost of services in Scotland is a gap you can't bridge - and only the terminally dumb would realistically think it could be done without cutting Scottish spending to average UK levels.

 

Follow the green line. The deficit is shrinking. If it continues to shrink it will eventually disappear.

[eFestivals]

1 minute ago, LJS said:

What does matter is that is is happening consistently.

Ok, fair enough.

But what is causing that consistency?

It's clear as day that it's the UK-govt's deficit reduction programme which is impacting onto Scotland, causing roughly the same drop in Scotland's deficit each year as it is in the whole-UK's deficit.

And so the problem remains, until such time as Scotland is carving out a distinctly different path on the graphs above to the UK. The deficit is, in-effect, caused by the extra spending Scotland has from Barnett, and will remain for all of the while Scotland is receiving that higher funding.

It'll take another lucky break like the discovery of oil to make enough difference to bridge that gap, and while a lucky-break like that isn't impossible, I can't think of any country that's had two lucky breaks like that (except perhaps the UK itself, thru the industrial revolution).

 

 

 

[eFestivals]

9 minutes ago, LJS said:

Another smart person might acknowledge the relentless upward trajectory of the green line.

But you used to rant that the UK is failing. Now you're saying it's not.

(another one of those things where you argue against your own viewpoint to try and sustain the indy myths)

That line started to go relentlessly upwards for two different reasons:

1. the bounce-back from the depths of a huge slump, where the bounce-back (that can be managed) has already happened,

and

2. the UK's deficit reduction programme, that is due to end (if it comes in on plan) in 3 years. .... and you said above you need 6 years, so you still don't get there.

(funnily enough, 3 years of not-getting the 'constant' 2% deficit reduction equals...? The 6% I said you'd be left with).

So ... to see that 6% of GDP cut to a manageable target of 2% of GDP, where in Scottish Govt spending do you recommend they find the 8% reduction in spending that will be necessary?

Cut services for the poor, maybe? Introduce a bedroom tax to make more efficient and fair use of public resources, perhaps? Swinging cuts to the NHS, maybe? Stop paying people the living wage?

And i'll point out right here they could do all of those things and they'll have barely scratched the surface of the necessary cuts.

You can have your indy dream, but what you can't have is the better society you said you were doing it for.

[eFestivals]

28 minutes ago, LJS said:

Follow the green line. The deficit is shrinking. If it continues to shrink it will eventually disappear.

The deficit is arrived at by the difference between govt revenues and govt spending put as a percentage against GDP.

As there's no meaningful growth in Scottish govt revenues, that deficit will eventually disappear when everyone in Scotland advocates huge spending cuts, by sending some of the block grant back to Westminster.

Go for it if you like.

I can only win. They'd be an extra £10Bn a year for England (and Wales and NI), and you and yours - but not me - suffer the dire consequences of your choice.

Personally I think it's daft to object to small obstacles and say the solution is to create bigger ones, but punch yourself in the face if you want.

Edited September 20, 2016 by eFestivals

[sjseabass]

11 hours ago, eFestivals said:

 

There's more to it than the measures you're using.  You could have also pulled out similar for Ireland, where there's far less public provision than there is in the UK.

GDP is not actually a great measure of national accessible, usable wealth. Ireland has a fantastic GDP.

That's rather my point, no? That you can't just look at a country and say its wealth is more by x, therefore everyone is x better off (or, indeed, the reverse)?

Quote

It is a fact.

Unless you can tell me how a country can have 13% less govt resources than currently and still have the same govt resources....?

Because it's an indisputable fact that the Scottish govt would lose the £10(ish)bn it gets from Westminster each year.

Perhaps you can tell me that If 'austerity' is evil and damages an economy - which you've argued to me in the past - why doesn't work like that in just Scotland, because losing that £10bn a year would be like tory austerity on steroids.

Well presumably you agree that Tory governance (of the economy and everything else) is damaging to the country compared to the alternatives? Scotland would be free to have those alternatives. That's not to say it would instantly make up the Barnett money, but as LJS has been saying, the deficit could progress to a manageable level, where swingeing cuts don't have to be made, and then a course could be charted out of it (this depends a bit on borrowing costs for iScotland being reasonable, I suppose).

11 hours ago, eFestivals said:

PS - to fridge....

I can (I'm not going to: google) pull out quotes from Sturgeon which...

1. explicitly admit that Scotland has the deficit stated in GERS.

2. that the deficit is the result of the higher cost of delivery of public services in Scotland, due to demographics and geography.

3. that if Scotland went indy today she'd have to cut like Westminster.did

So I'm wondering, if you're so smart and have all the answers, how come the person in biggest need of those answers isn't employing you - or someone with your viewpoint - to give her the answers she needs?

Even Salmond's 2014 lauded (ha!*) economic advisers didn't think it worked like that, which is why the 2014 white paper was all about the oil (to cover 16% of govt spending).

(* see back a few pages in this topic to see just how ignorant and uninformed at least one of those advisers - a Scottish professsor, no less - actually is).

The only vaguely-sensible answer to the deficit problem is the much-said "we'll grow the economy", but that hits the problem of the "dirty little secret of economics".....

Scotland can be Greece if it wants to be, just as Krugman says.

I don't think I have all the answers. I just don't think it's unthinkable there are some, or that the deficit at the instant of independence is the be-all and end-all. A future independence campaign would clearly need to address the economic questions better than last time if it wanted to win. Not living under a government willing to throw the economy under a bus and sell the wreckage to the highest bidder is probably one of the answers.

Also, if 3 is a reference to what I think it is, that's not what Sturgeon said.

P.S this is all a bit devil's advocate for me. I'm not particularly an advocate for Scottish independence. I just feel like constantly shouting "independence = making the poor 13% poorer, QED" is misguided.

[LJS]

4 hours ago, eFestivals said:

The deficit is arrived at by the difference between govt revenues and govt spending put as a percentage against GDP.

which is what the relentlessly rising green line shows

4 hours ago, eFestivals said:

As there's no meaningful growth in Scottish govt revenues, that deficit will eventually disappear when everyone in Scotland advocates huge spending cuts, by sending some of the block grant back to Westminster.

There is meaningful growth in revenues - over 2% p.a. over the past 6 years... unless Kevin is lying

4 hours ago, eFestivals said:

Go for it if you like.

thanks, you are so kind  

4 hours ago, eFestivals said:

I can only win. They'd be an extra £10Bn a year for England (and Wales and NI), and you and yours - but not me - suffer the dire consequences of your choice.

If you think the Tory government you will almost certainly elect will share that massive windfall with you, good luck to you. I think the vast bulk of it (if it even exists) will be distributed amongst their mates.

4 hours ago, eFestivals said:

Personally I think it's daft to object to small obstacles and say the solution is to create bigger ones,

I agree.

4 hours ago, eFestivals said:

but punch yourself in the face if you want.

Yay 

the punching in the face nonsense is back.  

anyone for Jam?

 

[eFestivals]

10 hours ago, theevilfridge said:

That's rather my point, no? That you can't just look at a country and say its wealth is more by x, therefore everyone is x better off (or, indeed, the reverse)?

But GDP is not how Scotland's poor financial position is being revealed.

It's revealed by Scotland spending £15Bn a year more than it raises in revenues. GDP only comes into it as a measure of that deficit's sustainability.

10 hours ago, theevilfridge said:

Well presumably you agree that Tory governance (of the economy and everything else) is damaging to the country compared to the alternatives? Scotland would be free to have those alternatives. That's not to say it would instantly make up the Barnett money, but as LJS has been saying, the deficit could progress to a manageable level, where swingeing cuts don't have to be made, and then a course could be charted out of it (this depends a bit on borrowing costs for iScotland being reasonable, I suppose).

You've asked the wrong question for what we're discussing. The tories might be damaging the country, but it's hard to argue at this moment in time* that they're damaging the economy.when the UK economy is out-performing just about every other developed economy.

(* long term perhaps they are, but that's a different argument again until such time as we get a crash from it).

And of course the main 'damage' that's perhaps being done is using house prices to hold up the economy, but that's something that's having very little effect within a Scotland with a (just about) static population and so just about static house prices. Scotland is a big beneficiary of how the tories have worked things (it's the south that's getting the worse consequences of that).

If they're to do alternatives, what alternatives? The SNP have presented no plan beyond cutting corp tax - something that's evil and tory when Gidiot was doing it, don't forget.

And if they're to do alternatives, remember Krugman: "let me tell you about a dirty little secret of economics — namely, that we don’t know very much about how to raise the long-run rate of economic growth"

No economy can be artificially inflated beyond its 'natural' level and remain sustainable, precisely as Greece demonstrated. Given that Scotland is preforming at the UK average - which makes Scotland the best performing economy of a peripheral 'state' in all of Europe, btw - there's nothing to suggest Scotland is currently falling short so that its economy can be expanded.

But, even if you're right and it can be elevated, it requires a lot of both time and money to achieve it, and an indy Scotland would have neither. Even Sturgeon herself has publicly admitted that if Scotland went indy while having a large deficit (and the eventual 6% would certainly still class as that) she'd have no alternative but to make massive cuts. People won't lend to a country if there's no suggestion of getting their money back.

10 hours ago, theevilfridge said:

I don't think I have all the answers. I just don't think it's unthinkable there are some, or that the deficit at the instant of independence is the be-all and end-all. A future independence campaign would clearly need to address the economic questions better than last time if it wanted to win. Not living under a government willing to throw the economy under a bus and sell the wreckage to the highest bidder is probably one of the answers.

Also, if 3 is a reference to what I think it is, that's not what Sturgeon said.

There's a very wide gap between hoping and wanting a miracle and one being delivered somehow. You're falling into the same trap as snippers have done, that because they want something so desperately it must be possible to do.

When no one has a plan that suggests the possibility of that miracle - and no one does have that plan, certainly not the SNP - then the wise thing to do is to think there is no workable plan. Feel free to revise that if/when someone does have a plan.

You say the govt has thrown the economy under a bus when it's one of the best performing economies in the world currently. The long term consequences might end up as bad, but that's something different to what is happening currently.

3 is very definitely what Sturgeon said. She said it on Sunday Politics to Andrew Neil within about the last 6 months (before the EU ref, somewhen). There's no disputing her words or what they meant.

All in all, it seems to me that you're advocating Keynsian economics but pretending that Keynes said "increase public spending in both the downturns and the upturns".

 

Quote

P.S this is all a bit devil's advocate for me. I'm not particularly an advocate for Scottish independence. I just feel like constantly shouting "independence = making the poor 13% poorer, QED" is misguided.

I'm not against Scottish indy.

I'm simply pointing out the cost that comes with it, and that it cannot achieve the things that caused people to support it in the first place.

Scotland's poor will not be better treated in a country with a reduction of 10%+ of public spending (with that 10%+ reduction made on-top of all tory cuts).

You will not have a bigger mutual respect between citizens in a society where everyone is desperately trying to hang onto the levels of prosperity they currently have, and where they'll be happy to see others take the hit to protect their own position.

In essence, Scotland has yet to wake up to just how currently privileged it really is.

 

Edited September 21, 2016 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

9 hours ago, LJS said:

which is what the relentlessly rising green line shows

only because of the cuts to the 'block grant'. The graphs make clear that it's what the whole-UK economy is doing that is causing Scotland's improvement.

How many times do I have to repeat the same thing?

Tho I do have to laugh at someone who's spent the last two and half years banging on about how the UK is destroying the Scottish economy suddenly praising what the UK is doing as the answer to Scotland's problems.

 

9 hours ago, LJS said:

There is meaningful growth in revenues - over 2% p.a. over the past 6 years... unless Kevin is lying

it's only meaningful if 'the deficit gap' is closed.

Nothing meaningful of the deficit gap is closing. That's why the last two GERS show the same lower (compared to whole-UK) revenue raising in Scotland of £400 less per person.

Scotland only starts to make inroads into that deficit gap after it's raising more revenues than whole UK. Get back to me when it does.

Meanwhile, from next April, Scotland starts to carry some of its own risks with its economy - which in itself is going to cause the SG to be more-cautious about spending. When you can't guarantee the money you'll have to spend, you can't guarantee the same levels of spending.

 

9 hours ago, LJS said:

If you think the Tory government you will almost certainly elect will share that massive windfall with you, good luck to you. I think the vast bulk of it (if it even exists) will be distributed amongst their mates.

even if that's what happens, I'm still not punching myself in the face while believing that god is showering me with money.

Never mind, eh?

Edited September 21, 2016 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

On 18/03/2016 at 1:17 PM, eFestivals said:

Ohhh, the iPlayer of Sunday Politics is back.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b072nrp3/sunday-politics-london-13032016

(about 5 minutes in).

Sturgeon: "we would be dealing with it in the same was that the UK dealt with its deficit in 2009/10".

Sturgeon: "I don't for a second say we shouldn't try and get the deficit down".

Sturgeon: "for the last ten years our fiscal position has been broadly the same as the UK's" (lie!)

Sturgeon: "If you look at the projections for the next ten years ... our onshore revenues are projected to grow by £14Bn" (so less than the UK's predicted growth then, meaning the fiscal gap with grow further, and not shrink)

(waffle waffle waffle ... mention of Norway's oil fund [squirrel!] .... lots of mentions of how revenue raising in Scotland is similar to UK [but no mention of 20% higher spending ... squirrel!]

Sturgeon: "it costs lots more to deliver services ... in Scotland" (so why the squirrel of similar revenues when spending is the problem?)

Sturgeon: "we would deal with the deficit in the same way the UK is dealing with the deficit".

(waffle waffle waffle ... claim of Scottish exceptional .... claim of automatic EU entry ... deflection "we didn't vote yes" [but you'd be in deep deep shit if you had, just as the 'scaremongers' said] .... mention of Norway's oil fund .... waffle waffle waffle)

Wonderful words there from the different politician.

here you go, fridge - Sturgeon's words on Andrew Neil.

Sturgeon: "we would deal with the deficit in the same way the UK is dealing with the deficit".

Now, how is the UK dealing with the deficit? Might it be via massive cuts to public spending...?

Edited September 21, 2016 by eFestivals

[LJS]

51 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

here you go, fridge - Sturgeon's words on Andrew Neil.

Sturgeon: "we would deal with the deficit in the same way the UK is dealing with the deficit".

Now, how is the UK dealing with the deficit? Might it be via massive cuts to public spending...?

Thanks for demonstrating that sturgeon didn't say what you claimed. If you can't see another interpretation of sturgeon's words than the one you have put on it, you need to go back to school.

It is crystal clear to anyone who follows politics at all that the snp's views on the ways to cut the deficit are drastically different to Osborne's.

What she is saying, in my view, is that, in the same way that the Tories have addressed the deficit, a Scottish government would require to address the deficit. That is not the same as saying they would use the same measures to address it & only someone out of touch with Scottish politics (or someone desperately spinning to try & support their flawed argument) would claim it was.

[eFestivals]

14 minutes ago, LJS said:

It is crystal clear to anyone who follows politics at all that the snp's views on the ways to cut the deficit are drastically different to Osborne's.

that's their view of how to do it in perfect circumstances, of having enough years for the SNP to successfully grow the Scottish economy to successfully close the deficit gap.

The answer she gave Andrew Neil was the answer of how to do it immediately, if Scotland were immediately independent. And in those circumstances, she clearly stated she'd use the same method as the UK govt had done, EXACTLY THE SAME AS OSBORNE!!!!

FFS.

Meanwhile, nothing of those 'perfect circumstances' is happening, leaving the Osborne method as the only idea she has.

 

Quote

What she is saying, in my view, is that, in the same way that the Tories have addressed the deficit, a Scottish government would require to address the deficit. That is not the same as saying they would use the same measures to address it & only someone out of touch with Scottish politics (or someone desperately spinning to try & support their flawed argument) would claim it was.

Sturgeon: "we would deal with the deficit in the same way the UK is dealing with the deficit".

FFS.

There are simply no other options. Scotland simply doesn't have anyone who would keep lending them money on a no-payback basis over the timescale required for any other possibility than massive cuts.

What do you think the other options are, and over what timescale?

Edited September 21, 2016 by eFestivals

[LJS]

19 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

that's their view of how to do it in perfect circumstances, of having enough years for the SNP to successfully grow the Scottish economy to successfully close the deficit gap.

The answer she gave Andrew Neil was the answer of how to do it immediately, if Scotland were immediately independent. And in those circumstances, she clearly stated she'd use the same method as the UK govt had done, EXACTLY THE SAME AS OSBORNE!!!!

FFS.

Meanwhile, nothing of those 'perfect circumstances' is happening, leaving the Osborne method as the only idea she has.

 

Sturgeon: "we would deal with the deficit in the same way the UK is dealing with the deficit".

FFS.

There are simply no other options. Scotland simply doesn't have anyone who would keep lending them money on a no-payback basis over the timescale required for any other possibility than massive cuts.

What do you think the other options are, and over what timescale?

When is Scotland likely to become independent? What will it's deficit be then? What will the outcome of negotiations regarding apportioning debt & assets between rUK & iS?

As the answer to all these questions can only be "I don't know" it is impossible to answer your question.

Meanwhile the green line keeps rising...

 

And for the record I disagree with your interpretation of nic's words. She could certainly have phrased it better but then she was dealing with a belligerent & obsessive interviewer.

[eFestivals]

27 minutes ago, LJS said:

When is Scotland likely to become independent? What will it's deficit be then?

If Sturgeon's doings run to plan....

2019 at the latest.

8% at the smallest.

Oh dear.

 

Quote

What will the outcome of negotiations regarding apportioning debt & assets between rUK & iS?

(I love how Scotland is now ISIS )

Anyone who thinks the assets and liabilities won't be split on an equal-liability basis is a fruitcake. The only squabbling will be around which particular things of value are apportioned to each side.

(for example, Scotland won't want 9% of UK nukes, so will get something else instead)

Or are you still believing that the UK is responsible (as in "paying for") for every penny of the current-UK's debts, just because you can read just the first sentence but not the whole paragraph of a UK govt statement?

 

Quote

As the answer to all these questions can only be "I don't know" it is impossible to answer your question.

That's only true for anyone with their head up their arse.

The specifics we don't know, the general outline will be a fair split - and not a split that benefits Scotland at rUK's expense.

 

Quote

Meanwhile the green line keeps rising...

Meanwhile Osborne's cuts - that you disagree with - cause that green line to rise.

And Osborne's cuts (if they continue to plan; they won't go beyond plan, that's for sure) will stop when Scotland's deficit is at around 6%, meaning that that rise in the green line is for a limited time only.

 

Quote

And for the record I disagree with your interpretation of nic's words. She could certainly have phrased it better but then she was dealing with a belligerent & obsessive interviewer.

The only reason you're giving that get-out now is because the full context is lost by how I've presented Sturgeon's words.

Funnily enough, you didn't argue what you're arguing now at the time she spoke those words, because at that time it was easy to see the full context.

Talk about making it up.

Edited September 21, 2016 by eFestivals

[LJS]

14 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

If Sturgeon's doings run to plan....

2019 at the latest.

But according to you, she doesn't want an indyref. Hmm.

14 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

8% at the smallest.

Oh dear.

 

(I love how Scotland is now ISIS )

Anyone who thinks the assets and liabilities won't be split on an equal-liability basis is a fruitcake. The only squabbling will be around which particular things of value are apportioned to each side.

(for example, Scotland won't want 9% of UK nukes, so will get something else instead)

Which might mean we take a bit less of the debt for example.

14 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Or are you still believing that the UK is responsible (as in "paying for") for every penny of the current-UK's debts, just because you can read just the first sentence but not the whole paragraph of a UK govt statement?

 

That's only true for anyone with their head up their arse.

Legally the UK is responsible. However, I have never disputed that iS would take on a share of it.

14 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

The specifics we don't know, the general outline will be a fair split - and not a split that benefits Scotland at rUK's expense.

I agree.

14 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Meanwhile Osborne's cuts - that you disagree with - cause that green line to rise.

And Osborne's cuts (if they continue to plan; they won't go beyond plan, that's for sure) will stop when Scotland's deficit is at around 6%, meaning that that rise in the green line is for a limited time only.

Starting with a 6% deficit would not be undo-able. It's certainly lower than you have previously suggested.

14 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

The only reason you're giving that get-out now is because the full context is lost by how I've presented Sturgeon's words.

Funnily enough, you didn't argue what you're arguing now at the time she spoke those words, because at that time it was easy to see the full context.

Talk about making it up.

You ate wrong. I took exactly the same view at the time as you will find if you look back on this forum.

Talk about making it up. Big fat smiley.

[LJS]

In fact here was my response the first time you posted about the Andy Neil interview.

"

Sturgeon's words are clearly capable of 2 interpretations.

1: Westminster dealt with the deficit: so would we.

2: we would use the same methods as Westminster did to tackle the deficit

In a piece that you appear to have inadvertently omitted, she made it clear she would not use the same methods."

 

.

 

[eFestivals]

11 minutes ago, LJS said:

In fact here was my response the first time you posted about the Andy Neil interview.

"

Sturgeon's words are clearly capable of 2 interpretations.

1: Westminster dealt with the deficit: so would we.

2: we would use the same methods as Westminster did to tackle the deficit

In a piece that you appear to have inadvertently omitted, she made it clear she would not use the same methods."

but "not using the same methods" only allows for tax rises instead of spending cuts, or borrowing which has to be paid back (and there's no scope for even maintaining the current borrowing).

Which results in the same 'poorer'.

So different methods, same effect. Ity's not anything that makes a difference.

Funnity enough, i'm seeing more and more Scots saying they could support indy in certain circumstances, but not when the advocates are such liars - because something that starts with a lie isn't going to improve and create a better society.

It's people like you that will cause your dream to die.

Oh, but it already has. The "look after the poor better" goes as indy comes, and you know it - which is why you're now welcoming Osborne's cuts.

[eFestivals]

25 minutes ago, LJS said:

But according to you, she doesn't want an indyref. Hmm.

She's said one is "highly likely" but has since back-tracked.

She announced with confidence legislation for the scottish Parliament, but has backtracked to a consultation doc.

If you think that's full-team ahead, you're mad.

But even so, she's still clearly testing the waters, with her comment about how indy transcends the poverty that comes with it, to see if people will still bite when she offers no economic solution apart from cuts in spending and tax rises. From what i've seen around that, a few smarter minds have woken up, while the dullards continue with the same patently false ideas that you give, immune to even words of sense by your glorious leader.

 

25 minutes ago, LJS said:

Which might mean we take a bit less of the debt for example.

Yep - but too minor to be meaningful.

Don't forget, Scotland will be a country with zero credit record, and a currency to establish - and establishing that currency will cost far more than any debt reduction in the indy deal.

And don't forget, just to remain as you are - with no boost to the economy via borrowings - will cost more than your borrowing capacity.

 

25 minutes ago, LJS said:

Legally the UK is responsible. However, I have never disputed that iS would take on a share of it.

Yet you and comfy have quoted the first sentence of the paragraph on a number of occasions, but have never mentioned the 2nd sentence.

But anyway, that there is a a definitive statement.

 

25 minutes ago, LJS said:

I agree.

Starting with a 6% deficit would not be undo-able. It's certainly lower than you have previously suggested.

it's not un-doable, but it's only doable with cuts or similar poverty-inducing methods.

 

25 minutes ago, LJS said:

You ate wrong. I took exactly the same view at the time as you will find if you look back on this forum.

Talk about making it up. Big fat smiley.

Big billy bullshit.