The Dirty Independence Question

[LJS]

23 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

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.

 

I understood chokka's figures to be real terms I.e. inflation had been accounted for. even if they aren't, what's the inflation rate been like lately?

I have never claimed the notional deficit gap has closed. I'm not interested in the gap. I am interested in the deficit and for the purposes of trying to look at trends, it's the onshore deficit that matters.

[eFestivals]

23 minutes ago, LJS said:

 

I understood chokka's figures to be real terms I.e. inflation had been accounted for. even if they aren't, what's the inflation rate been like lately?

I have never claimed the notional deficit gap has closed. I'm not interested in the gap. I am interested in the deficit and for the purposes of trying to look at trends, it's the onshore deficit that matters.

so you welcome tory cuts - because that's the only trend that's happening towards a lower deficit for Scotland.

[LJS]

11 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

so you welcome tory cuts - because that's the only trend that's happening towards a lower deficit for Scotland.

According to your pal, in spite of Tory cuts Scottish expenditure has been pretty much unchanged over the past 6 or 7 years while revenue has increased every year. I'd love to see government expenditure increasing and would argue for a modest increase targeted to provide economic stimulus. 

It's worth pointing out that the years where I've quoted figures have particularly challenging ones for financial services & oil, two important sectors of the Scottish economy.

[eFestivals]

23 hours ago, LJS said:

According to your pal, in spite of Tory cuts Scottish expenditure has been pretty much unchanged over the past 6 or 7 years while revenue has increased every year.

And he's right. What's wrong is your understanding of it.

Scottish expenditure is pretty much unchanged because of tory cuts. If it wasn't being cut in real terms it will have been rising with inflation. Inflation might be small, but if it's (say) 1% and the block grant is identical as the previous year, that classes as a 1% cut in spending in real terms. 

Meanwhile, revenues have increased every year because of inflation and growth. A bigger economy equals higher tax revenues.

BUT ... if all of those circumstances are also the same for rUK, when the whole-UK growth is greater than Scottish growth - and it has been for the last year covered in GERS - that means Scotland has fallen even further behind rUK with its finances.

Which is what has happened, tho the amount it's fallen further behind is minimal. So minimal it wouldn't be worth mentioning, it's only become necessary to do so because you're claiming it's gone the other way.

 

23 hours ago, LJS said:

I'd love to see government expenditure increasing and would argue for a modest increase targeted to provide economic stimulus. 

So you'd like to see govt spending targeted towards making businessmen richer and no spending increases towards the poor?

You're sounding like a tory.

And your govt has claimed to have created that economic stimulus with some of the things they've done, so perhaps ask them why they're not doing it now? Or is considering that the SG is failing Scotland not on the list of allowed considerations? 

 

23 hours ago, LJS said:

It's worth pointing out that the years where I've quoted figures have particularly challenging ones for financial services & oil, two important sectors of the Scottish economy.

Any difficulties for financial services aren't much of this when comparing against whole-UK, as whole-UK has been impacted by the same troubles to the same sector. (There will be a difference because they're of differentiating importance to each's economy - but the difference isn't huge, particular in how it comes out in the Scottish numbers where the money difference is only 9% of the different importances).

Oil sector contraction has had a big impact on Scotland, and as chokka correctly noted Scotland has ridden that difficulty very well - tho of course helped by how the drop in oil price helps the non-oil economy while impacting on the oil economy. Funnily enough, if the oil price were to rise again, you get the reverse effect. I can remember an indy-ist of note (I forget who) making this point and snippers enjoying telling  'yoons' it's wonders.

It would be a mistake, a misunderstanding of the numbers, to think those effects of the change in oil price are not working within their own 'bubble' - and so there's not yet any trend of great non-oil growth, instead it's a blip caused by the change in oil price.

It might prove to be the case that it's not just a blip and is a trend, but we need the future to play out first to know, to show it happening over a number of years.

But it's quite easy to see that it's unlikely that one of the countries with a mature economy and towards the top of the wealth list is not likely to see exceptional growth for very long - at least, not over and above the whole-nation economy its tied to, and it's rUK that Scotland needs to be outperforming to close that deficit gap.

[LJS]

2 hours ago, eFestivals said:

And he's right. What's wrong is your understanding of it.

Scottish expenditure is pretty much unchanged because of tory cuts. If it wasn't being cut in real terms it will have been rising with inflation. Inflation might be small, but if it's (say) 1% and the block grant is identical as the previous year, that classes as a 1% cut in spending in real terms. 

Meanwhile, revenues have increased every year because of inflation and growth. A bigger economy equals higher tax revenues.

BUT ... if all of those circumstances are also the same for rUK, when the whole-UK growth is greater than Scottish growth - and it has been for the last year covered in GERS - that means Scotland has fallen even further behind rUK with its finances.

Which is what has happened, tho the amount it's fallen further behind is minimal. So minimal it wouldn't be worth mentioning, it's only become necessary to do so because you're claiming it's gone the other way.

The problem for you here are that I've used your pal's figures and he kindly explains:  "The figures below are all in real terms (i.e. adjusted by the UK GDP deflator)."

So, in real terms, between 0209/10 and 2015/16  Scotland's expenditure has been unchanged whilst revenue has increased. I have already told you these are "real terms" figures  - a fact you conveniently ignored.

 

 

2 hours ago, eFestivals said:

 

So you'd like to see govt spending targeted towards making businessmen richer and no spending increases towards the poor?

You're sounding like a tory.

Not at all, putting money in to the pockets of the poorest is an excellent way to stimulate the economy because unlike the rich, they are almost certain to spend that money & more likely to spend it locally.

2 hours ago, eFestivals said:

And your govt has claimed to have created that economic stimulus with some of the things they've done, so perhaps ask them why they're not doing it now? Or is considering that the SG is failing Scotland not on the list of allowed considerations? 

You are well aware, I woudl happily see my governments put more money in the pockets of the poor.

2 hours ago, eFestivals said:

 

Any difficulties for financial services aren't much of this when comparing against whole-UK, as whole-UK has been impacted by the same troubles to the same sector. (There will be a difference because they're of differentiating importance to each's economy - but the difference isn't huge, particular in how it comes out in the Scottish numbers where the money difference is only 9% of the different importances).

Oil sector contraction has had a big impact on Scotland, and as chokka correctly noted Scotland has ridden that difficulty very well - tho of course helped by how the drop in oil price helps the non-oil economy while impacting on the oil economy. Funnily enough, if the oil price were to rise again, you get the reverse effect. I can remember an indy-ist of note (I forget who) making this point and snippers enjoying telling  'yoons' it's wonders.

It would be a mistake, a misunderstanding of the numbers, to think those effects of the change in oil price are not working within their own 'bubble' - and so there's not yet any trend of great non-oil growth, instead it's a blip caused by the change in oil price.

It might prove to be the case that it's not just a blip and is a trend, but we need the future to play out first to know, to show it happening over a number of years.

But it's quite easy to see that it's unlikely that one of the countries with a mature economy and towards the top of the wealth list is not likely to see exceptional growth for very long - at least, not over and above the whole-nation economy its tied to, and it's rUK that Scotland needs to be outperforming to close that deficit gap.

For the millionth time (adjusted for inflation), I couldn't give a flying fuck about the deficit gap - It has no relevance to the subject of the thread. I am interested in the absolute deficit and the point I am making is that Scotland's notional onshore deficit has fallen steadily & consistently over the past 6 years despite the difficulties of the financial services & oil sectors. So, there is no reason to think that the steady trend of the past 6 years is likely to stop.

[eFestivals]

20 hours ago, LJS said:

The problem for you here are that I've used your pal's figures and he kindly explains:  "The figures below are all in real terms (i.e. adjusted by the UK GDP deflator)."

So, in real terms, between 0209/10 and 2015/16  Scotland's expenditure has been unchanged whilst revenue has increased. I have already told you these are "real terms" figures  - a fact you conveniently ignored.

My apologies, you're right ... but much less meaningfully-right than your grand claims of it being Scotland's salvation....

Here's the improvement in revenues that you're championing:-

2014-15:   Scottish onshore revenue was estimated as £51.6 billion (8.0 per cent of UK onshore revenue). This represents £9,600 per person, £400 less than the UK average;

2015-16: Scotland’s public sector revenue is equivalent to £10,000 per person, £400 less than the UK average, regardless of the inclusion of North Sea revenue.

I reckon it doesn't take a genius to realise that we're looking at 100 years to merely close the gap on revenue-raising via that "improvement", when there's still the 10%-ish extra spending gap to also be closed.

 

Quote

Not at all, putting money in to the pockets of the poorest is an excellent way to stimulate the economy because unlike the rich, they are almost certain to spend that money & more likely to spend it locally.

Or not, if it's cheaper to leave the country to spend it which the SNP thinks is a good idea.

 

 

Quote

You are well aware, I woudl happily see my governments put more money in the pockets of the poor.

unless it means having to vote for a party that would do it.

 

Quote

For the millionth time (adjusted for inflation), I couldn't give a flying fuck about the deficit gap - It has no relevance to the subject of the thread.

The deficit gap is *EVERYTHING* abut the subject of this thread. It's the very reason why Scotland is not already independent.

One of the things an indyref is voting about is whether that voter wants to impoverish themselves by no longer having that deficit gap covered by Westminster - and which we all know is by money from outside of Scotland.

 

Quote

I am interested in the absolute deficit and the point I am making is that Scotland's notional onshore deficit has fallen steadily & consistently over the past 6 years despite the difficulties of the financial services & oil sectors.

Might there be a link with the tories in govt for the last 6 years and their austerity policies?

Shurely not.

 

Quote

So, there is no reason to think that the steady trend of the past 6 years is likely to stop.

In the words of those very same tories - who've now slackened their grip on their own austerity, don't forget - there's an absolutely certain time based on an absolutely certain reason why the reduction in spending will stop.

It'll stop when the UK deficit equals zero.

Which would leave Scotland with a fixed deficit of approx 6%. That deficit gap is guaranteed by the Barnett Formula. If you want the deficit gone, you need the Barnett Formula gone too.

But it's nothing to do with the deficit gap?

All you're doing is showing just how far someone will go with fact-rejection if they can emotionally reconcile it with their wants.

Edited November 28, 2016 by eFestivals

[Comfy Bean]

Sturgeon spending a couple of days over in Ireland.

Maybe crimbo shopping, maybe not.

[Comfy Bean]

Neil this deficit gap that you and only you seem to be excited about. Couple of quick points. Do you not agree that if....we want to compare in the future then somewhere with similar geography, population size would make more sense ?

Can I also ask if you are comparing our wee region with all the other ones pooled together to include London and the south east.

Would it perhaps be a better indicator to compare Scottish economic performance with one of the other northern regions which will only have Tory policies running things where Scotland has a mix of Torys in London plus the more left leaning Scottish govt.

Does our region run at 6% less than the north east for example ?

With oil down the stank and our population being more rural and spread out than that of the folks in the north east then I expect performance could be worse but maybe your beloved gap is not as much as 6 % ?

[LJS]

[eFestivals]

16 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

Neil this deficit gap that you and only you seem to be excited about. Couple of quick points. Do you not agree that if....we want to compare in the future then somewhere with similar geography, population size would make more sense ?

It's as sensible as laying out what it means - cuts, and greater poverty in Scotland. Because it means accepting the loss of £9Bn a year.

If you think that can sell, I suggest you ask yourself why no one on the indy side is trying to sell it.

FFS.

 

Quote

Can I also ask if you are comparing our wee region with all the other ones pooled together to include London and the south east.

Yep. All places that voted remain voted remain, but it means as much a tory vote in a seat that Labour won. The losing vote is the losing vote. There was no distinct Scottish vote just as there was no distinct London or Bristol vote.

Sorry, I realised i completely misunderstood the link you were making, and went with a different link myself. I'll try again....

In answer to your question: it depends what's being discussed. Sometimes it's relevant to reference whole-UK or rUK and sometimes it's better to reference something else or nothing at all.

In regard to Scotland's deficit gap, the only thing really worth referencing is the deficit gap, and that it's caused by spending being much greater than revenues, to the extent that if Scotland were a country it would have the worst deficit in Europe as a percent of GDP.

You don't really have to reference anything else, you only need to find a way to make the books sustainably balance and where what is done to achieve that (cuts or tax rises) isn't too unpalatable.

The outcome of whatever you do, tho, is always the same - that Scotland and the people within it would be on average poorer than now. You can't take £9bn from an economy and not have that happen.

 

Quote

Would it perhaps be a better indicator to compare Scottish economic performance with one of the other northern regions which will only have Tory policies running things where Scotland has a mix of Torys in London plus the more left leaning Scottish govt.

Nope, cos their circumstances aren't set to change radically on the basis of newly-made political decision.

What don't you grasp about you wanting to cut Scottish spending by waaaaay more than the torires have done?

 

Quote

Does our region run at 6% less than the north east for example ?

Your region has about 25% more to spend than the North East.

If your indy dream is to make Scotland as deep in the shit as the North East, you go for it and see what your countrymen think of that idea.

Go on, tell me again that it's not about the money.

 

Quote

With oil down the stank and our population being more rural and spread out than that of the folks in the north east then I expect performance could be worse but maybe your beloved gap is not as much as 6 % ?

Eh? Don't understand what you're asking.

Just as you don't seem to understand what you're asking of Scotland, to impose on itself bigger cuts than the tories have made.

 

Edited November 29, 2016 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

On 11/25/2016 at 0:41 AM, LJS said:

No poll ever conducted since indy ref has shown support for indy at below 45% 

It just has - less than a week after you posted this.

Latest Yougov polling shows support for indy at 44%
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/14936903.Blow_for_SNP_as_support_for_independence_falls_below_referendum_level/

This is on top of the polling moving-average showing reduced support within polls for all of the time since the indyref (don't forget, the polls have been recording higher than the actual 45% in the indyref).

None of it is a massive change, but the trend is very solidly downwards and brexit hasn't changed a jot of that. The "it's only a matter of time" meme is looking weaker and weaker.

Sturgeon was still drivelling the same "very likely" when in Ireland a few days ago, but now she's fucked. She'll now be hoping that Westminster gets a new EU deal that she can somehow claim a personal victory about, that May has done something of what sturgeon has been wanting - cos it's the only way she can come out of it without looking foolish. 

[LJS]

2 hours ago, eFestivals said:

It just has - less than a week after you posted this.

Latest Yougov polling shows support for indy at 44%
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/14936903.Blow_for_SNP_as_support_for_independence_falls_below_referendum_level/

This is on top of the polling moving-average showing reduced support within polls for all of the time since the indyref (don't forget, the polls have been recording higher than the actual 45% in the indyref).

None of it is a massive change, but the trend is very solidly downwards and brexit hasn't changed a jot of that. The "it's only a matter of time" meme is looking weaker and weaker.

Sturgeon was still drivelling the same "very likely" when in Ireland a few days ago, but now she's fucked. She'll now be hoping that Westminster gets a new EU deal that she can somehow claim a personal victory about, that May has done something of what sturgeon has been wanting - cos it's the only way she can come out of it without looking foolish. 

Well done, after 26 months of bogus claims, you finally have a whole one poll showing support for Indy  whole 1% lower than the indyref.

Enjoy your moment.

[russycarps]

Well there's no need to be upset, in brilliant news for scotland oil prices have surged above $50 a barrel now opec have agreed to cut production! You raving nationalists can start crowing about how rich you are going to be again now. 

Until the american shale drillers ramp up production to make up the shortfall that is.

 

Edited December 1, 2016 by russycarps

[eFestivals]

34 minutes ago, LJS said:

Well done, after 26 months of bogus claims, you finally have a whole one poll showing support for Indy  whole 1% lower than the indyref.

Enjoy your moment.

except, as i said long ago and repeated above, the polls have generally been higher than the real vote was, and the trend of those polls has been downwards. This is merely the first poll that has fallen below that 'magic' 45%.

And the timing of it is significant too, because it's happened at a time when just about everyone (me included) had thought it was likely to show a rise.

Indy couldn't win in the perfect circumstances of a tory govt, austerity, and a high oil price creating a false impression of the economic state. There might have been a 'material change' with regards the EU, but that clearly counts for shit against the other problems of Scotland which no one has an answer for apart from sticking with the UK.

[eFestivals]

19 minutes ago, russycarps said:

Well there's no need to be upset, in brilliant news for scotland oil prices have surged above $50 a barrel now opec have agreed to cut production! You raving nationalists can start crowing about how rich you are going to be again now. 

Well, except they're still lower than 3 weeks ago, so it's no great shakes.

The crash of the pound is the best thing that's happened for the Scottish oil industry this year, as it's made it around 15% better off (because of oil being traded in dollars).

 

19 minutes ago, russycarps said:

Until the american shale drillers ramp up production to make up the shortfall that is.

I read a few oil trader places yesterday, and they were laughing their socks off at how opec had mugged so many people on the significance of their announcement, but those oil traders didn't care, they suddenly had a world full of mug punters.

Even without the yank frackers diving back in and the mothballed rigs starting up again, it's likely that everyone in opec will keep on pumping just qas hard, hoping that the others will be honest tho none of them will. None of them can take the risk of losing market share, as they're so dependent on the income of what they're pumping now.

[russycarps]

15 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Well, except they're still lower than 3 weeks ago, so it's no great shakes.

The crash of the pound is the best thing that's happened for the Scottish oil industry this year, as it's made it around 15% better off (because of oil being traded in dollars).

 

I read a few oil trader places yesterday, and they were laughing their socks off at how opec had mugged so many people on the significance of their announcement, but those oil traders didn't care, they suddenly had a world full of mug punters.

Even without the yank frackers diving back in and the mothballed rigs starting up again, it's likely that everyone in opec will keep on pumping just qas hard, hoping that the others will be honest tho none of them will. None of them can take the risk of losing market share, as they're so dependent on the income of what they're pumping now.

Yep, it's a cartel full of crooks and skulduggery. You can make or lose a fortune on the volatility of oil prices. 

A few wide boys making a fast buck is one thing, but imagine basing an entire economic plan on such a volatile commodity. Who would be stupid enough to do such a thing...!

In other news, I read that the SNP’s 3month survey asking scots their views on independence formally closed. But they wont be publishing the results. I wonder why....

 

 

 

[eFestivals]

5 minutes ago, russycarps said:

In other news, I read that the SNP’s 3month survey asking scots their views on independence formally closed. But they wont be publishing the results. I wonder why....

they only got around 10% of the responses they were after too - no doubt nearly all from the hardcore (perhaps the hardcore of the polar views of both sides) too, so unlkely to be representative.

That latest polling showed that indy does have majority support amongst those born in Scotland. Rather amusingly it's the EU nationals who fall more to the UK to tip the balance - which I guess shows that they've moved to the UK and not to Scotland. Scotland is merely the region of the UK in which they settled.

[zahidf]

for all her faults...

 

[zahidf]

 

[eFestivals]

Perhaps she could start at home, by calling out the not insignificant element within her own party? It's a subject she has NEVER touched on. 

How come you say, zahidf, that Trump has to do it (tho then said it was meaningless when he did), yet you don't say the same for others with no less* of a problem?

(* a same problem with xenophobia and racism, not in how it's displayed).

The only bad racists are those on 'the other side' ...?

Edited December 3, 2016 by eFestivals

[zahidf]

18 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Perhaps she could start at home, by calling out the not insignificant element within her own party? It's a subject she has NEVER touched on. 

How come you say, zahidf, that Trump has to do it (tho then said it was meaningless when he did), yet you don't say the same for others with no less* of a problem?

(* a same problem with xenophobia and racism, not in how it's displayed).

The only bad racists are those on 'the other side' ...?

Did she say she was going to rebuild Hadrians Wall and call all English immigrants rapists? I missed that

Its a stretch to compare her and Trump. For their faults, the SNP didnt use open bigotry to be succesful electorally, and their political stance is pro immigration.

And are you saying she specifically turns a blind eye to islamaphobia and racism in her party? 

[LJS]

1 minute ago, zahidf said:

Did she say she was going to rebuild Hadrians Wall and call all English immigrants rapists? I missed that

Its a stretch to compare her and Trump. For their faults, the SNP didnt use open bigotry to be succesful electorally, and their political stance is pro immigration.

And are you saying she specifically turns a blind eye to islamaphobia and racism in her party? 

I"m pretty sure that's exactly what he's saying. Apparently we hate the English. 

Neil even thinks #comfortablynumb is racist!

[eFestivals]

8 minutes ago, zahidf said:

Did she say she was going to rebuild Hadrians Wall and call all English immigrants rapists? I missed that

Its a stretch to compare her and Trump. For their faults, the SNP didnt use open bigotry to be succesful electorally, and their political stance is pro immigration.

And are you saying she specifically turns a blind eye to islamaphobia and racism in her party? 

I didn't compare her with Trump - tho there's plenty of similarities there too ("Make America great agains" vs "putting Scotland first". Spot the difference? There's no difference to be spotted) - but pointed out the problem of racism and xenophobia that exists within a not-insignificant minority of both of their supporters.

Trump has called his out and disassociated himself with them. Even Corbyn has called out the anti-semites within Labour.

While Sturgeon goes around pointing out the racism elsewhere but never at home - and there's no SNP supporter who's not well aware of it.

Racism is racism is racism. It's only the likes of you who thinks there's good racism and bad racism, and constantly show your double standards each time you do.

(just to be clear, I'm not claiming the SNP is a racist party, but I am claiming its party that's very deliberately shutting its eyes to the racists within it).

Edited December 3, 2016 by eFestivals

[zahidf]

The SNP has anti-racism procedures in place and as a policy, are pro immigration.

If they occasionally need to do better, then fair enough, but you hinting that sturgeon being pro immigrarion is insincere or inadequate is unfair. 

[Comfy Bean]

1 hour ago, zahidf said:

The SNP has anti-racism procedures in place and as a policy, are pro immigration.

If they occasionally need to do better, then fair enough, but you hinting that sturgeon being pro immigrarion is insincere or inadequate is unfair. 

Correct.

To mention Sturgeon and Trump in the same post is either mischievous, at best, or shows a completely lack of understanding around what NS is about.

Fair enough to disagree with her politics but Neil continues to just make stuff up to back up  his hate fuelled version of what's going on politically in Scotland.

Idiots on both sides etc with some reduced to idiotic insults like poisoned dwarf facist racist etc but the vast vast majority on both sides are engaged in an interesting, ongoing ( see this thread ) debate.