The Dirty Independence Question

[eFestivals]

1 minute ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

Exactly this 

 

That's fine.

But there's still the small matter of £9Bn a year disappearing from Scotland, and the massive effect that will have on Scottish society.

If tory cuts are bad, why would much bigger cuts to make indy work a good thing?

[Comfy Bean]

14 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

What have you missed about it all being about the money, comfy?

Here again we disagree. Of course not ending up in a cave is important and for some, like yourself, it will be all about the money. I respect that but I also believe it`s possible to know the price of everything yet the value of nothing.

For me it`s not and never has been all about the money.

[eFestivals]

3 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

Here again we disagree. Of course not ending up in a cave is important and for some, like yourself, it will be all about the money. I respect that but I also believe it`s possible to know the price of everything yet the value of nothing.

For me it`s not and never has been all about the money.

But surely you can see, that if it's not about the money and isn't about comparing your country's wealth with other countries, there's no need to try to 'find' the missing £9Bn to make up the shortfall?

You could simply say "we'll make iScoltand work by making £9bn in cuts".

So why aren't you?

[eFestivals]

You all hate Severin but think Libby's cool - yep, i know.

You'll have to suck this one up, then.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/25/nicola-sturgeon-snp-referendum

 

[eFestivals]

2 hours ago, eFestivals said:

But surely you can see, that if it's not about the money and isn't about comparing your country's wealth with other countries, there's no need to try to 'find' the missing £9Bn to make up the shortfall?

You could simply say "we'll make iScoltand work by making £9bn in cuts".

So why aren't you?

You seem to have gone a bit quiet, comfy. Is there a reason why?

And also, if it's not about the money for LJS, it seems a little weird that he's so absolutely focused on the SNP presenting him with a solution that doesn't mean massive cuts, or even on his own "we'll grow the economy" (that's laughable because it will have to grow so much and nothing has been grown so far, but that's a side issue to his want of a replacement for the Barnett £9Bn, his focus on the money).

It only ceases to be about the money when money doesn't have to be any part of the rationale for indy, so that there's no need of an economic plan.

Edited November 25, 2016 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

14 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

You all hate Severin but think Libby's cool - yep, i know.

You'll have to suck this one up, then.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/25/nicola-sturgeon-snp-referendum

 

as some kind soul in the comments provided the link to the SNP's survey, I filled it in.

After all, it says it's a national survey, and I'm the same 'national' as any Scot.

It's open to all nationals.
http://www.survey2016.scot/take_the_survey

(PS: i might have been slightly deceptive with my name & postcode. I wonder is there's many people in Scotland called Scotty McScotFace, and i wonder how many people share the same postcode as the SNP's headquarters? )

 

Edited November 25, 2016 by eFestivals

[LJS]

41 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

You all hate Severin but think Libby's cool - yep, i know.

You'll have to suck this one up, then.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/25/nicola-sturgeon-snp-referendum

 

I'm not sure I have expressed an opi up  on Libby, but I'd certainly agree that it's a much better effort than anything severin has produced. 

In fact, I agree with most  of what she says.

Thanks for the link.

[eFestivals]

On 11/21/2016 at 6:57 PM, comfortablynumb1910 said:

To put it another way, if I pay into my work pension for 30 years and then leave to go work elsewhere. I`d be expecting my old employer to be paying me a coin or two towards my retirement. I realise that this might not be the best example 

I've just realised that with all of the pension talk the other day, we skipped one part of it entirely.

Just to recap, we agreed that the liability for state pensions in iScotland would shift from the UK to the new sovereign Scottish Govt. From that point onwards, they would be distinct and separate schemes, where either govt could change the rules towards the pensioners and pensions they're liable to pay, and nothing of that change effects the pensioners or pension payments the other govt is liable for.

If we take the situation for whole-UK at the moment, pensioners are doing (comparatively) very well. The state pension has been rising by more than the rate of inflation, and pensioners are moving up the scale of economic prosperity. By the fact it's happening now it proves the UK is able to afford this (at this moment in time, anyway).

For the sake of argument, I'm going to use the situation today as what the situation will continue to be for rUK going forwards, and rUK pensioners continue to get inflation-or-better rises via 'the triple lock'.

But what happens in Scotland? 

If iScotland is paying pensions at a lower rate than in rUK, that makes clear to those pensioners that they're getting poorer as a consequence of indy. And from the opposite, if iScotland is paying pensions at a higher rate than in rUK, that makes clear to those pensioners that they're getting richer as a consequence of indy.

So far so good, and nothing contentious? There shouldn't be, so I'll carry on.

Given the issue with the Scottish deficit gap - the bit of the block grant not made up from 'Scottish revenues and borrowings' but which is a transfer from elsewhere in the UK, and is calculated by the Barnett Formula (currently worth about £9Bn a year) - and that Scotland will need to make spending cuts because of the lose of that income.

How does anyone think Scottish pensioners might do compared to those in rUK?

Not about the money? People will always want to compare with what they might have instead, so without that £9Bn black-hole getting plugged somehow - impossible unless another oil boom, or other miracle - the push for indy has to overcome the 'vote yourself poorer' problem.

[gary1979666]

As for referencing the deficit compared to other countries of a similar size - is it not the case that Scotlands deficit would be proportionally higher than a smaller country, as currently all it's debts are backed by the UK, so can there's more scope for bigger borrowing.  Similar sized countries don't have that luxury.....wiould iScotland still have it?

[eFestivals]

25 minutes ago, LJS said:

I'm not sure I have expressed an opi up  on Libby, but I'd certainly agree that it's a much better effort than anything severin has produced. 

In fact, I agree with most  of what she says.

Thanks for the link.

So you do agree that sturgeon is running away from an indyref after all. 

Glad we've sorted that out.

 

[eFestivals]

4 minutes ago, gary1979666 said:

As for referencing the deficit compared to other countries of a similar size - is it not the case that Scotlands deficit would be proportionally higher than a smaller country, as currently all it's debts are backed by the UK, so can there's more scope for bigger borrowing.  Similar sized countries don't have that luxury.....wiould iScotland still have it?

iScotland's starting debt - whatever that may be - would be no less backed by the UK, because it would be owed to the UK.

That would be shaken off by the UK within 15 years tho, by the way that the loans mature, and get paid off with new loans.

Unfortunately for iScotland, they're only likely to get 10 year loans at a maximum (which is the norm, even for counties with a high rating). The UK is exceptional with it's 15 years.

If I'm thinking that thru properly, iScotland starts to hit the shit big time when newly borrowing in its own right on the commercial markets somewhere around year 10, when it's having to roll-over its first own-loans while still having 5 years of new loans to take out for repaying rUK with.

 

[lost]

I'd also like to see figures regarding projected revenues from tuition fee's going forward and if these are cost neutral.

As we all know the way the interest is set up and accumulates unless you get a very good paying job immediately after university you are very likely to be paying what is effectively a graduate tax for the majority of your working life so effective rates of 42% at basic, 51% at higher and around 55% at top rate for British graduates and 9% lower for Scottish graduates. If this isn't cost neutral I guess its revenue the Scottish government will need to raise from elsewhere? Also you could have the situation where a British person working in Scotland would need to contribute to British coffers with the 9% contribution.

[eFestivals]

Wow. Seems matey who wrote 'beyond GERS' is dead serious that the UK is paying Scotland's share of the debt and Scottish pensions.

https://thecommongreen.wordpress.com/2016/11/24/beyond-gers-a-response-to-comments/

Is this really the best Scotland has? Morally dishonest people who think others should regard Scotland as so important those others should pay Scoltand's bills?

And I thought one of the grumbles in Scotland is that you didn't like the idea of dependence.

 

[eFestivals]

SNP spreading mis-information.

http://chokkablog.blogspot.co.uk/2016/11/defacing-facts-snp-mp-paul-monaghan.html

[eFestivals]

Part-prompted by something I saw elsewhere, I've just come up with the following scenario....

The Article 50 thing is in the courts in a week or two, and the SNP are part of the case, specifically around whether there's any different arguments to be made from the point of view of Scottish Law.

I've seen it suggested that this might be to the SNP falling into a tory trap. That if A50 had to go before Westminster, or had to be approved in be approved in holyrood too, because of an argument from Scottish law, and then wasn't able to proceed (things dragged on beyond the promise of a50 in the spring) the SNP would be useful idiots for the tories to point at for the blame.

But also, the rammifications could be much greater. If Scottish law had effectively over-ruled 'the nation's' wish of brexit, and while stopping brexit might be accepted, power not being able to be exercised by Westminster wouldn't be, and what had happened would be used to unwind devolution to some degree or perhaps even totally, and with a (supposedly) renewed one nation-ism at its heart too.

Slightly wacky, perhaps. But not impossible, particularly the first part.

The second part looks more like something the tories might want but would struggle to make happen I reckon, tho I've thought of something which might get it support, and that's electoral reform with it - tho the only change I can really think that might fit with less devolved powers is a PR voting system which doesn't seem like a tory option.

[tolywoly]

2 hours ago, eFestivals said:

Wow. Seems matey who wrote 'beyond GERS' is dead serious that the UK is paying Scotland's share of the debt and Scottish pensions.

https://thecommongreen.wordpress.com/2016/11/24/beyond-gers-a-response-to-comments/

Is this really the best Scotland has? Morally dishonest people who think others should regard Scotland as so important those others should pay Scoltand's bills?

And I thought one of the grumbles in Scotland is that you didn't like the idea of dependence.

 

It's pretty easy to get the numbers to add up if you just assume another country is going to pay for some of your public spending. Great idea. The UK should pay for and independent scotland's NHS too.

Nice to see this thread is still going strong. 

[eFestivals]

2 minutes ago, tolywoly said:

Nice to see this thread is still going strong.

it's the subject that just keeps on giving.

 

[LJS]

4 hours ago, eFestivals said:

So you do agree that sturgeon is running away from an indyref after all. 

No. Libby's column doesn't say that either.

4 hours ago, eFestivals said:

Glad we've sorted that out.

 

Sorry to spoil your gladness.

 

[LJS]

9 hours ago, eFestivals said:

But surely you can see, that if it's not about the money and isn't about comparing your country's wealth with other countries, there's no need to try to 'find' the missing £9Bn to make up the shortfall?

You could simply say "we'll make iScoltand work by making £9bn in cuts".

So why aren't you?

This is in reply to Comfy who quite clearly did not say "it's not about the money."  He said "For me it`s not and never has been all about the money."

The word "all" omitted from your reply makes a world of difference  - Comfy even bolded it to help your understanding but, as you so often do, you have replied to something he didn't say.

[LJS]

11 hours ago, eFestivals said:

but you have objected to Scotland's poorest paying less tax because they're too poor to not deserve a bigger decrease in their taxes.

No I haven't. No one has offered that option. I did however vote for a party who proposed higher taxes for the rich.

11 hours ago, eFestivals said:

And now you advocate their destitution via Indy, because you want Scotland to be Greece.

 

And now I advocate that you stop talking shite.

[LJS]

10 hours ago, eFestivals said:

The deficit is decreasing due only to tory cuts.

If the UK ever reduces it's deficit to zero, Scotland will be left with a deficit of around 6%.-7% (of approx £9Bn) which is over three times a sound target deficit.

The only way to reduce that to a sound deficit is with further cuts - bigger than the tories imposed.

I just love how the tory-haters have become the advocate of bigger cuts than the tories.

 

According to your pal, onshore revenue has increased from £47.1Bn in 2009/10 to £53.7Bn in 2015/16 whilst expenditure has stayed almost exactly the same (£68.7Bn to £68.6Bn) So the reduction in the onshore deficit has been  due to an increase in revenue rather than a decrease in spending.

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

 

 

[LJS]

10 hours ago, eFestivals said:

is Scotland's 'block grant' increasing (in real terms) or decreasing (in real terms)?

You've spent years banging on about the evil cuts that the evil tories are forcing on Scotland. If that's not happening now, I'll enjoy seeing you switch your hatred for that to Sturgeon.

 

see above  -  If GERS tells us anything relevant to Scottish independence. it is the Revenue & expenditure figures that matter because, there will be no block grant in an independent Scotland.

[lost]

28 minutes ago, LJS said:

According to your pal, onshore revenue has increased from £47.1Bn in 2009/10 to £53.7Bn in 2015/16 whilst expenditure has stayed almost exactly the same (£68.7Bn to £68.6Bn) So the reduction in the onshore deficit has been  due to an increase in revenue rather than a decrease in spending.

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

 

 

I believe he's talking about specific cuts in certain areas. If you take out gilts rising and debt interest dropping, the tories ring fencing the NHS and foreign aid going up a bit, you can see the big cuts are to certain areas i.e. local services going from £6.8bn to £5.4bn and its that stuff that people are getting upset about.

But you are entirely correct in that overall, the Tories haven't really made massive cuts.

Edited November 25, 2016 by lost

[eFestivals]

12 hours ago, LJS said:

According to your pal, onshore revenue has increased from £47.1Bn in 2009/10 to £53.7Bn in 2015/16 whilst expenditure has stayed almost exactly the same (£68.7Bn to £68.6Bn) So the reduction in the onshore deficit has been  due to an increase in revenue rather than a decrease in spending.

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

 

 

There's been a decrease in spending in real terms. You know, inflation and all that.

Onshore revenues have increased by the growth rate. You know, inflation and all that. But, you need to note, with a lower growth rate than whole-UK.

Which means Scotland fell even further behind rUK, and didn't close anything of the 'deficit gap'. It's pointed out quite clearly in GERS, where the bigger gap - a gap that's grown - towards the UK average revenues is noted.

Where you've gone wrong is by thinking that the decent growth rate has closed the gap. The decent growth rate is being lauded because it's happened while the oil industry has collapsed, and not because it's put Scotland in a better position towards the UK average. Scotland's position towards the UK average is worse and not better in the most recent GERS.

But hey, if you don't get it and go off with a mistaken idea, it's only you to blame. All the information is there to be understood.

Edited November 26, 2016 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

11 hours ago, LJS said:

see above  -  If GERS tells us anything relevant to Scottish independence. it is the Revenue & expenditure figures that matter because, there will be no block grant in an independent Scotland.

those revenue and expenditure figures are only improving due to tory cuts.

The deficit gap is only touched if there's approximately 12% of *EXTRA* cuts from the SNP, over and above any Tory cuts.

LJS, the champion of worse-than-tory cuts. That's you that is.