The Dirty Independence Question

[eFestivals]

just in case the bullshit that is the SNP's latest budget has mugged you (a snipper mugged by SNP bullshit? That'll never happen ) the lovely Kevin Hague has provided an idiots guide....

 

 

[LJS]

4 hours ago, eFestivals said:

just in case the bullshit that is the SNP's latest budget has mugged you (a snipper mugged by SNP bullshit? That'll never happen ) the lovely Kevin Hague has provided an idiots guide....

 

 

Or when you beat about Tory austerity being responsible for the persistent reduction in Scotland's on-shore deficit.

[eFestivals]

11 minutes ago, LJS said:

Or when you beat about Tory austerity being responsible for the persistent reduction in Scotland's on-shore deficit.

Because it is.

It helps if you understand what you're commenting on.

Increases in real terms is something different to increases in real-people terms. The amount of funding per-person has reduced, and that comes out in the round.

[LJS]

2 hours ago, eFestivals said:

Because it is.

It helps if you understand what you're commenting on.

Increases in real terms is something different to increases in real-people terms. The amount of funding per-person has reduced, and that comes out in the round.

...and the goalposts shifted yet again.

[eFestivals]

13 hours ago, LJS said:

...and the goalposts shifted yet again.

Nope, tho it's probably the crappest response i've ever given here. I'm wondering if it's worth me trying to do better, or whether I should just give it up, having realised it's beyond your want of understanding.

I'm probably wasting my time, but i'll give it a go. Here's a nice graphic by chokka:-

 

Now, do you notice how the whole-UK deficit is reducing?

And do you also notice how the Scottish on-shore deficit line is just about parallel with the whole-UK deficit line, so that the Scottish deficit is reducing at the same rate as whole-UK?

That reducing whole-UK deficit is what you kept on posting about, as Osborne's "failure".

Are you really so stupid as to claim the Scottish deficit reducing at an identical rate is the SNP's success, all down to the wonders of Scotland?

Are you really so stupid as to believe that any of the Scottish deficit reduction is eating into what gets called 'the deficit gap', Scotland's own extra deficit that is sustained by the extra money Scotland has to spend via the Barnett formula?

I guess you are, which only gets to show how fucked up an indy Scotland would be when so few of its supporters understand what they're actually voting for.

But hey, it's your own poverty and your kids poverty you're too dumb to understand, and i'm happy for you to punch yourself and your kids in the face.

What i'm not happy about is your lies or stupidity causing the same onto those who have more brain than you.

If you want indy, go for it - but an indy won on stupidty and lies will be no glorious tomorrow. If Scotland is as great as you like to believe, why does it only have liars and the stupid on the indy side? Why can't you win your dream on the truth?

You're no different to farage, boris, gove and the rest.

Edited December 21, 2016 by eFestivals

[LJS]

3 hours ago, eFestivals said:

Nope, tho it's probably the crappest response i've ever given here. I'm wondering if it's worth me trying to do better, or whether I should just give it up, having realised it's beyond your want of understanding.

you do say the nicest things, Neil.

3 hours ago, eFestivals said:

I'm probably wasting my time, but i'll give it a go. Here's a nice graphic by chokka:-

 

Now, do you notice how the whole-UK deficit is reducing?

Yes, Neil.

3 hours ago, eFestivals said:

And do you also notice how the Scottish on-shore deficit line is just about parallel with the whole-UK deficit line, so that the Scottish deficit is reducing at the same rate as whole-UK?

Yes Neil.

3 hours ago, eFestivals said:

That reducing whole-UK deficit is what you kept on posting about, as Osborne's "failure".

Osborne promised twice to eliminate the deficit. He failed both times. 

3 hours ago, eFestivals said:

Are you really so stupid as to claim the Scottish deficit reducing at an identical rate is the SNP's success, all down to the wonders of Scotland?

No, I don't think I'm that stupid, Neil, which is why I have never attributed responsibility for the Scottish deficit reduction to anyone in particular. (If you were to ask me who is responsible, I would tell you it is predominantly the UK government as they control most of the important economic levers.)  The important point is that it is happening and it is happening without government expenditure in Scotland being reduced as you and your pal have been at great pains to point out.

3 hours ago, eFestivals said:

Are you really so stupid as to believe that any of the Scottish deficit reduction is eating into what gets called 'the deficit gap', Scotland's own extra deficit that is sustained by the extra money Scotland has to spend via the Barnett formula?

You love your notional deficit gap, don't you Neil. At the risk of being extremely boring, I shall repeat for the umpteenth time, that the "deficit gap" between an independent Scotland and the rUK is of no more relevance than our deficit gap with Lichtenstein or Botswana. What matters is the absolute deficit. If an independent Scotland can continue to reduce the deficit while maintaining public expenditure, we will be fine & we will happily leave you to worry about the rUK deficit. 

3 hours ago, eFestivals said:

I guess you are, which only gets to show how fucked up an indy Scotland would be when so few of its supporters understand what they're actually voting for.

Do pay attention, Neil.

3 hours ago, eFestivals said:

But hey, it's your own poverty and your kids poverty you're too dumb to understand, and i'm happy for you to punch yourself and your kids in the face.

Ah lovely, let's get the old child abuse allegations on the road again. My youngest child will be eighteen in a few days so they are all old enough now to abuse themselves.

3 hours ago, eFestivals said:

What i'm not happy about is your lies or stupidity causing the same onto those who have more brain than you.

Oh look another couple of gratuitous insults. How seasonal.

3 hours ago, eFestivals said:

If you want indy, go for it - but an indy won on stupidty and lies will be no glorious tomorrow. If Scotland is as great as you like to believe, why does it only have liars and the stupid on the indy side? Why can't you win your dream on the truth?

I have been pretty clear what I believe the SNP have to do in order to win Indyref2 and that includes making a better economic case than they did last time.

3 hours ago, eFestivals said:

You're no different to farage, boris, gove and the rest.

whatever.

[eFestivals]

24 minutes ago, LJS said:

Osborne promised twice to eliminate the deficit. He failed both times. 

to be fair to him, he didn't get the chance to fulfil his 2nd promise.

Hre failed to hit is reduction targets. He didn't fail in reducing it.

Just as he didn't fail in reducing Scotland's deficit - the thing you cheer.

[eFestivals]

33 minutes ago, LJS said:

No, I don't think I'm that stupid, Neil, which is why I have never attributed responsibility for the Scottish deficit reduction to anyone in particular. (If you were to ask me who is responsible, I would tell you it is predominantly the UK government as they control most of the important economic levers.)  The important point is that it is happening and it is happening without government expenditure in Scotland being reduced as you and your pal have been at great pains to point out.

WTF? PMSL

We've been having an ongoing discussion where you've been rejecting me telling you Scotland's deficit has been reducing only due to Westminter's cutting, and where I've been saying the reductions in the deficit would stop when Westminster stopped reducing its deficit.

And I've been pointing out that there is a 6%-7% deficit that is Scotland-alone's to deal with.

So anyway, thank you for finally being brave enough to admit that the SNP are improving nothing of Scotland's economic position.

Which contrasts to your claims that Scotland is currently growing itself out of the shit - it's not. It's staticly in the shit, as that static distance (the parallel lines) between the UK deficit and Scottish deficit gets to prove.

Edited December 21, 2016 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

34 minutes ago, LJS said:

You love your notional deficit gap, don't you Neil. At the risk of being extremely boring, I shall repeat for the umpteenth time, that the "deficit gap" between an independent Scotland and the rUK is of no more relevance than our deficit gap with Lichtenstein or Botswana. What matters is the absolute deficit. If an independent Scotland can continue to reduce the deficit while maintaining public expenditure, we will be fine & we will happily leave you to worry about the rUK deficit. 

it's 'notional' to Scotland only because Scotland isn't the one currently paying for it. That changes on indy and then it becomes real.

The current reductions are a direct result of cuts in public expenditure - expenditure that is rightly attributed to Scotland, but not made directly by the Scottish govt.

So there is no "continue" for you to claim as you do.

You'd have to claim it as a miracle, because that's what it would take to work how you want it to.

[eFestivals]

47 minutes ago, LJS said:

I have been pretty clear what I believe the SNP have to do in order to win Indyref2 and that includes making a better economic case than they did last time.

is that better economic case really meaning better lies?

Or is it meaning the truth, of the SNP telling Scotland there'll be £9Bn less for the govt to spend each year?

If there's a better economic case to be made, why is there no one that's able to make it?

Why do you think that the SNP have a super-secret plan hidden away that they'll pull out at indyref time, when no one else is able to present a workable (and acceptable) economic plan?

I always said it was all about the money, and for all the while the indy side hides behind lies about money, I'm proven right.

As you've just done, again.

Unless you think the SNP have god-like powers, able to conjure up a miracle...?

Edited December 21, 2016 by eFestivals

[LJS]

2 hours ago, eFestivals said:

WTF? PMSL

We've been having an ongoing discussion where you've been rejecting me telling you Scotland's deficit has been reducing only due to Westminter's cutting, and where I've been saying the reductions in the deficit would stop when Westminster stopped reducing its deficit.

But Westminster's cutting has not resulted in a reduction in Government spending in Scotland. What sort of cutting is that? What the Tories have demonstrated in Scotland is that you and they were both wrong to say that you cannot reduce a deficit without reducing government spending.  

2 hours ago, eFestivals said:

And I've been pointing out that there is a 6%-7% deficit that is Scotland-alone's to deal with.

When Scotland is alone it will have to deal with 100% of its deficit  - your beloved gap becomes an irrelevance.

2 hours ago, eFestivals said:

So anyway, thank you for finally being brave enough to admit that the SNP are improving nothing of Scotland's economic position.

I didn't admit any such thing. I said the fall in the deficit, in my view, is predominantly  the doing of the UK government. As Holyrood gets more powers it will have a greater responsibility for the size of the deficit. In practice it is impossible to precisely apportion how much each government has contributed.

2 hours ago, eFestivals said:

Which contrasts to your claims that Scotland is currently growing itself out of the shit - it's not. It's staticly in the shit, as that static distance (the parallel lines) between the UK deficit and Scottish deficit gets to prove.

Is the Scottish on-shore deficit decreasing? 

[LJS]

2 hours ago, eFestivals said:

it's 'notional' to Scotland only because Scotland isn't the one currently paying for it. That changes on indy and then it becomes real.

The current reductions are a direct result of cuts in public expenditure - expenditure that is rightly attributed to Scotland, but not made directly by the Scottish govt.

But your pal has made a big song and dance of proving that public expenditure has not decreased,  So what's it to be? make your mind up  - has public expenditure in Scotland decreased or not?

2 hours ago, eFestivals said:

So there is no "continue" for you to claim as you do.

You'd have to claim it as a miracle, because that's what it would take to work how you want it to.

Are you now denying that the Scottish onshore deficit has been steadily decreasing for the past 5 or 6 years? I can get Chokka's graphs out again for you if you are.

That is exactly what Scotland needs to continue.

[LJS]

2 hours ago, eFestivals said:

is that better economic case really meaning better lies?

Well hopefully better lies than the Remain campaign manage in the Euro ref. But no it doesn't mean better lies. 

2 hours ago, eFestivals said:

Or is it meaning the truth, of the SNP telling Scotland there'll be £9Bn less for the govt to spend each year?

There is no absolute truth in these matters because we are dealing with predictions and estimates. 

2 hours ago, eFestivals said:

If there's a better economic case to be made, why is there no one that's able to make it?

No matter how good a case the Yes side make, it will be rubbished by the No side - that's politics. Why woudl the SNP publish an economic case for an independent Scotland when we don't even know if there will be a referendum & we don't know when it might be? It would be political madness. I believe a coherent case can be made (as I have been doing) and I fully expect Nic to make such a case if and when the time comes. I'm afraid until that great day, you will just need to be patient. Never mind you can pass the time counting the deficit gap.

2 hours ago, eFestivals said:

Why do you think that the SNP have a super-secret plan hidden away that they'll pull out at indyref time, when no one else is able to present a workable (and acceptable) economic plan?

See above.

2 hours ago, eFestivals said:

I always said it was all about the money, and for all the while the indy side hides behind lies about money, I'm proven right.

As you've just done, again.

What have I done? Lied about money? If that is your accusation please point out one lie about money I have told today. Be careful  -all my "lies" come from your pal.

2 hours ago, eFestivals said:

Unless you think the SNP have god-like powers, able to conjure up a miracle...?

Yeah, course I do. 

[eFestivals]

47 minutes ago, LJS said:

But Westminster's cutting has not resulted in a reduction in Government spending in Scotland. What sort of cutting is that?

Holyrood only spends about half of what is Scotland's full share of expense, so there's plenty of scope for stuff like the cutting of defence spending (which has been pretty big, too) to show up as a reduction of the Scottish deficit in GERS.

Also, there's stuff like the population of the UK having grown (as has GDP with it) while spending has been flat (or cut, but to keep it simple to think thru, think of it as flat). Which means there's every penny of the tax contributions of those extra people to take off the deficit.

And due to how the population is rising faster in rUK than Scotland, combined with the Barnett formula, that works some to Scotland's advantage too.

43 minutes ago, LJS said:

There is no absolute truth in these matters because we are dealing with predictions and estimates. 

But we do know that if Scotland were indie tomorrow and everything else remained even, it would be the case.

Either there's £9bn in cuts or £9bn in tax rises (that's BIG tax rises!) or a mix of the two. 

There's no getting away from the fact that Scotland would be poorer by £9Bn a year thru the loss of Barnet,

59 minutes ago, LJS said:

When Scotland is alone it will have to deal with 100% of its deficit  - your beloved gap becomes an irrelevance.

Not really.

If you like, the 'UK part' of the deficit is the 'managable deficit' part. It's the bit that comes from Barnett money that's the deficit gap.

And that's a structural issue, of Scotland needing to spend (comparatively, against whole-UK average) far more on delivering the same levels of public services as the rest of the country, while only paying the same tax levels as the rest of the country.

The *ONLY* solutions are less spending or more taxing (or a mix), money that will be taken away from the real pockets of people in Scotland.

You would have to grow your economy faster than rUK for a century or more to cover that gap via Salmond's suggested better growth than rUK (and that better growth might not even happen).

1 hour ago, LJS said:

Is the Scottish on-shore deficit decreasing? 

Yes.

Is it decreasing at a faster rate than rUK, in order to close the deficit gap? No.

 

[eFestivals]

1 hour ago, LJS said:

But your pal has made a big song and dance of proving that public expenditure has not decreased,  So what's it to be? make your mind up  - has public expenditure in Scotland decreased or not?

It depends on the dates that difference is measured over, as he's pointed out about the dodgy budget.

Overall, it's about flat.

Which on a spend per-person basis is decreased spending per pound of tax raised, and so is a cut in the deficit.

 

1 hour ago, LJS said:

Are you now denying that the Scottish onshore deficit has been steadily decreasing for the past 5 or 6 years? I can get Chokka's graphs out again for you if you are.

That is exactly what Scotland needs to continue.

You've said the cutting of the deficit is due to Westminster, so Scotland is not doing anything it can continue doing. It can only continue doing what it's started doing.

Scotland is not cutting Scotland's deficit, Westminster is cutting Scotland's deficit.

That only changes when the lines stop running parallel and the Scottish line moves nearer the UK line.

 

[eFestivals]

1 hour ago, LJS said:

No matter how good a case the Yes side make, it will be rubbished by the No side - that's politics.

True, but not every situation is the same.

There's the numbers adding up, and then there's the factors that have to come in as predicted in order to have those numbers.

The norm is for the numbers to be accepted - because they make sense (we did arithmetic from age 5, or at least I did) - and for the arguments to be around whether the factors will come in as predicted.

Your version is where you don't even accept the numbers produced by the govt you support as anything meaningful for Scotland's position,

From that position, it's logically impossible to say anything meaningful about what you hope might happen economically, because you don't accept it can be quantified to be shown as the good thing you say it is.

 

1 hour ago, LJS said:

Why woudl the SNP publish an economic case for an independent Scotland when we don't even know if there will be a referendum & we don't know when it might be? It would be political madness.

It's fair enough to not publish until it's needed, but they'd be no need to keep its very existence a secret.

And neither would there be a need for the independence-supporting first minister to make a speech where she said indy was about more than the economics while making clear that a positive economic case couldn't be made currently.

And of course they'd be no end of amatuer economists punting out solutions if there were solutions. I think the last one you showed me was by a history geezer or something - definitely not a professional money-ists of any type. It was at least an attempt, and for the first time an attempt that recognises the true scale of the deficit - even if it was laughable on the moral angle it took to pensions (even Salmond isn't that much of a c**t, as the 2014 white paper showed).

That last amateur attempt only really got to show how impossible it is to give a decent economic case without cutting the shit ou8t of Scottish public services.

 

1 hour ago, LJS said:

I believe a coherent case can be made (as I have been doing) and I fully expect Nic to make such a case if and when the time comes. I'm afraid until that great day, you will just need to be patient. Never mind you can pass the time counting the deficit gap.

A coherent case can only be made by advocating savage cuts to Scottish govt spending.

 

[eFestivals]

1 hour ago, LJS said:

What have I done? Lied about money? If that is your accusation please point out one lie about money I have told today. Be careful  -all my "lies" come from your pal.

I haven't called you a liar (this time ), calm down.

You're in denial about the size of the deficit and how it would impact onto an iScotland.

The very fact of you being in denial about the money proves it's about the money.

If it wasn't about the money you'd be able to accept the facts about the money and the arguments then would be about the other things. Instead of the money.

it's all about the money.

[eFestivals]

1 hour ago, LJS said:

Yeah, course I do. 

 

1 hour ago, LJS said:

I fully expect Nic to make such a case

PMSL

 

[LJS]

4 hours ago, eFestivals said:

Holyrood only spends about half of what is Scotland's full share of expense, so there's plenty of scope for stuff like the cutting of defence spending (which has been pretty big, too) to show up as a reduction of the Scottish deficit in GERS.

According to your pal Spending has not been cut in real terms over the past 5 or 6 years. This is true whether you take GERS figures which factors in the mpney Westminster spends on our behalf or whether you just take ScotGov expenditure. According to you these are facts.

4 hours ago, eFestivals said:

Also, there's stuff like the population of the UK having grown (as has GDP with it) while spending has been flat (or cut, but to keep it simple to think thru, think of it as flat). Which means there's every penny of the tax contributions of those extra people to take off the deficit.

You're getting desperate now  - if income rises & expenditure stays flat the deficit decreases - whether population increases or , decreases doesn't alter that -although it may be part of the explanation as to why it happens. Funnily enough it only becomes part of your argument when the rest of it is blown out of the water.

4 hours ago, eFestivals said:

And due to how the population is rising faster in rUK than Scotland, combined with the Barnett formula, that works some to Scotland's advantage too.

I don't believe the Barnett formula plays a part in GERS. 

4 hours ago, eFestivals said:

But we do know that if Scotland were indie tomorrow and everything else remained even, it would be the case.

Either there's £9bn in cuts or £9bn in tax rises (that's BIG tax rises!) or a mix of the two. 

If an independent Scotland has a £9Bn deficit, it will need to do somethign about it. It will not need to eliminate it instantly - so it will need neither £9bn in cuts or £9Bn in tax rises. It will need to keep on reducing the deficit as it has been for the past half dozen years.

4 hours ago, eFestivals said:

There's no getting away from the fact that Scotland would be poorer by £9Bn a year thru the loss of Barnet,

We would be richer in so many other ways through the loss of almost constant Tory governments.

4 hours ago, eFestivals said:

 

If you like, the 'UK part' of the deficit is the 'managable deficit' part. It's the bit that comes from Barnett money that's the deficit gap.

If you like, once we are independent there will be no Uk part of the deficit, there will be one deficit which we will have to deal with but not, as you always seem to imply, overnight. 

4 hours ago, eFestivals said:

And that's a structural issue, of Scotland needing to spend (comparatively, against whole-UK average) far more on delivering the same levels of public services as the rest of the country, while only paying the same tax levels as the rest of the country.

The *ONLY* solutions are less spending or more taxing (or a mix), money that will be taken away from the real pockets of people in Scotland.

Oh god its the supermarket sweep theory of economics again. How come the Scottish deficit has been falling without reducing spending or increasing taxes?

4 hours ago, eFestivals said:

You would have to grow your economy faster than rUK for a century or more to cover that gap via Salmond's suggested better growth than rUK (and that better growth might not even happen).

Ha ha the great myth returns  - I can't be bothered checking Chokka's table but, as far as I remember,  according to him our onshore deficit has been reducing by about £1Bn a year for the past 5 or 6 years. If we can keep that up we'll be in surplus within about a dozen years of independence.

 

[LJS]

4 hours ago, eFestivals said:

True, but not every situation is the same.

There's the numbers adding up, and then there's the factors that have to come in as predicted in order to have those numbers.

The norm is for the numbers to be accepted - because they make sense (we did arithmetic from age 5, or at least I did) - and for the arguments to be around whether the factors will come in as predicted.

Your version is where you don't even accept the numbers produced by the govt you support as anything meaningful for Scotland's position,

Bollocks, I have deliberately been using GERS figures as presented by your mate for some time now. to show clearly a viable way forward for Scotland 

4 hours ago, eFestivals said:

From that position, it's logically impossible to say anything meaningful about what you hope might happen economically, because you don't accept it can be quantified to be shown as the good thing you say it is.

I don't need to quantify it. Kevin has done it for me.

4 hours ago, eFestivals said:

 

It's fair enough to not publish until it's needed, but they'd be no need to keep its very existence a secret.

What? This is just nonsense - are you suggesting "we've got a great plan but we're not going to tell you it... yet" is a viable position. Please get real.

4 hours ago, eFestivals said:

And neither would there be a need for the independence-supporting first minister to make a speech where she said indy was about more than the economics while making clear that a positive economic case couldn't be made currently.

Except, of course, that is not what she said. Or were you paraphrasing again?

4 hours ago, eFestivals said:

And of course they'd be no end of amatuer economists punting out solutions if there were solutions. I think the last one you showed me was by a history geezer or something - definitely not a professional money-ists of any type. It was at least an attempt, and for the first time an attempt that recognises the true scale of the deficit - even if it was laughable on the moral angle it took to pensions (even Salmond isn't that much of a c**t, as the 2014 white paper showed).

I think he has some sort of physics/science background but then your hero's cv isn't great on that stuff either. My background isan't particularly strong on economics but even I have been able to show clearly that Scotland can realistically reduce its deficit, And iI've done it so effectively that you are starting to fling in previously unmentioned factors such as population growth to try & discredit my position as well as constantly droning on about an entirely irrelevant notional deficit gap.

 I'm really happy to wait & see what the proposition is if and when indyref2 comes along. 

4 hours ago, eFestivals said:

That last amateur attempt only really got to show how impossible it is to give a decent economic case without cutting the shit out of Scottish public services.

Except I've done it with a bit of help from Kevin

4 hours ago, eFestivals said:

 

A coherent case can only be made by advocating savage cuts to Scottish govt spending.

 

Only if you believe that running a deficit is impossible which is clearly a ridiculous position to take. How nanty years since the end of WW2 has the UK not had a deficit?

[LJS]

4 hours ago, eFestivals said:

I haven't called you a liar (this time ), calm down.

You're in denial about the size of the deficit and how it would impact onto an iScotland.

For the purposes of the discussion on here, I have taken the view that there is no value in arguing about how big the deficit might be. So I have expended my energies showing that even if the deficit is as huge as you & Kevin say, it is manageable and can be reduced.

Quote

The very fact of you being in denial about the money proves it's about the money.

For some sad people it will all be about the money. 

Quote

If it wasn't about the money you'd be able to accept the facts about the money and the arguments then would be about the other things. Instead of the money.

There are no "facts" about the money. But for the purposes of argument on here, I am not challenging your "facts" about the money, instead I am using them to show how the deficit is decreasing. I have yet to hear an argument that that reduction cannot be continued.  

Quote

it's all about the money.

The best things in life are free but you can keep them for the birds and bees.

Give me money, that's what I want.

Edited December 21, 2016 by LJS

[eFestivals]

10 hours ago, LJS said:

According to your pal Spending has not been cut in real terms over the past 5 or 6 years

but it has been cut as a proportion of GDP,

With a growing population too, that's a proportional cut to Scotland (while not being a real terms cut in money), that makes the real-money deficit shrink.

Please try and understand the interactions, rather than keep on showing that a discussion around this is beyond your intelligence.

 

Edited December 22, 2016 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

10 hours ago, LJS said:

You're getting desperate now  - if income rises & expenditure stays flat the deficit decreases

No shit sherlock.

How is it desperate for me to say a particular thing that you then repeat back at me? :lol:

FFS.

 

 

[eFestivals]

10 hours ago, LJS said:

I don't believe the Barnett formula plays a part in GERS. 

PMSL.

The Barnett Formula provides Scotland with an extra chuck of money - detailed as the £1200 extra per-person in Scotland within the GERS summary.

And you say it plays no part....? PMSL. :lol:

[eFestivals]

10 hours ago, LJS said:

If an independent Scotland has a £9Bn deficit, it will need to do somethign about it. It will not need to eliminate it instantly - so it will need neither £9bn in cuts or £9Bn in tax rises. It will need to keep on reducing the deficit as it has been for the past half dozen years.

It might not need to eliminate it instantly, but to avoid bankruptcy it would need to eliminate it far faster than any growth of the economy could cover off. FFS.

It would take approx 17 years for £9Bn pa borrowings (17 x 9 = 153) to equal 100% of Scottish GDP (that's 100% on top of existing debts - so about £190% of GDP - waaaay more than iScotland could possibly borrow).

It would take 120 years in Salmond's own estimation (as laid out in the Indy White Paper) for the Scottish economy to grow faster than the rUK economy in order to close that £9bn deficit gap.

WTF are you having difficulty with, that you keep on believing that the £9Bn deficit gap is a meaningless nothing that Scotland can ignore?

Hello to the Athens of the north but with a bigger deficit.