The Dirty Independence Question

[eFestivals]

6 minutes ago, LJS said:

It will be better because it won't be run by an increasingly right wing & isolationist Tory party.

If poorer is better, you need to tell your countrymen that you want them to be poorer.

There's nothing better from lying bigger than the tories.

[LJS]

2 hours ago, eFestivals said:

there's a £9bn deficit which needs to be covered, and the only option is cuts.

Wrong. There is actually a notional deficit of £15bn. Based on the current arrangement where Scotland is part of the UK. Whilst I am quite sure iScotland would have a deficit (as the UK has had nearly every year since ww2, ) it is highly unlikely to be the same as the current figure.

2 hours ago, eFestivals said:

 

because artificially inflating an economy beyond what it can support with borrowed money works so well, just look at Greece....?

The option is cuts and only cuts. 

So how come Scotland's onshore deficit has reduced by about £6bn in the past 6 years without spending being cut?

The Tories have given a perfect demonstration that your crazy cutting tesconomics doesn't work.

2 hours ago, eFestivals said:

The fact that you feel the need to lie about it only ensures that indy will be a disaster. Farage won on a lie too, which makes him your bessie mate.

Pathetic.

[eFestivals]

18 minutes ago, LJS said:

Wrong. There is actually a notional deficit of £15bn. Based on the current arrangement where Scotland is part of the UK. Whilst I am quite sure iScotland would have a deficit (as the UK has had nearly every year since ww2, ) it is highly unlikely to be the same as the current figure.

PMSL  - i love your addiction to magic.

The deficit only changes if revenues are increased or spreading is cut. It's the most basic maths.

There's no magic about indy which changes a single thing of that.

So either tell us where the cuts will fall, or how the extra revenues will be raised - tho either way, Scotland is poorer by the amount of the Barnett money (about £9bn).

(I'm quite happy to concede that not every penny of the deficit needs addressing. It's quite reasonable to work to a 2% deficit; For all the while it's over 3% iScotland doesn't meet EU membership criteria).

 

Quote

So how come Scotland's onshore deficit has reduced by about £6bn in the past 6 years without spending being cut?

Because spending has been cut.

What are you too dumb to understand about all the places that spending has been cut but which don't impact into the SG's spending ability?

 

Quote

The Tories have given a perfect demonstration that your crazy cutting tesconomics doesn't work.

Really? Spending has been cut and the deficit has reduced as a result of those cuts.

If you want the perfect example of what you believe will work, just take a look at Greece - the perfect example for how spending money you don't have puts you deeper in the shit.

Care to ask a left wing economist about your take? He calls yours take wrong. It's only possible to re-pump-up an economy in recession, not an economy that isn't. You know, like Scotland.

Being a repeater of fake economics doesn't show you as smart, it shows you don't have the first idea of what you're talking about.

Meanwhile, if there's going to be that magic expansion of the Scottish economy, you'll be able to show me the plan for it, right? Oh, no, you can't, can you, because no economist is so fucking stupid to put his name to the shit from your arse.

Never mind, eh? But do show me a plan by someone who knows about economics when you have one, won't you?

 

 

Quote

Pathetic.

Says the man who thinks the answer to spending more money than you have is to spend even more money that you don't have.

The pathetic one is the man with no plan who thinks he has a plan. You.

Edited March 6, 2017 by eFestivals

[LJS]

4 hours ago, eFestivals said:

PMSL  - i love your addiction to magic.

The deficit only changes if revenues are increased or spreading is cut. It's the most basic maths.

There's no magic about indy which changes a single thing of that.

So either tell us where the cuts will fall, or how the extra revenues will be raised - tho either way, Scotland is poorer by the amount of the Barnett money (about £9bn).

(I'm quite happy to concede that not every penny of the deficit needs addressing. It's quite reasonable to work to a 2% deficit; For all the while it's over 3% iScotland doesn't meet EU membership criteria).

 

Because spending has been cut.

What are you too dumb to understand about all the places that spending has been cut but which don't impact into the SG's spending ability?

 

Really? Spending has been cut and the deficit has reduced as a result of those cuts.

If you want the perfect example of what you believe will work, just take a look at Greece - the perfect example for how spending money you don't have puts you deeper in the shit.

Care to ask a left wing economist about your take? He calls yours take wrong. It's only possible to re-pump-up an economy in recession, not an economy that isn't. You know, like Scotland.

Being a repeater of fake economics doesn't show you as smart, it shows you don't have the first idea of what you're talking about.

Meanwhile, if there's going to be that magic expansion of the Scottish economy, you'll be able to show me the plan for it, right? Oh, no, you can't, can you, because no economist is so fucking stupid to put his name to the shit from your arse.

Never mind, eh? But do show me a plan by someone who knows about economics when you have one, won't you?

 

 

Says the man who thinks the answer to spending more money than you have is to spend even more money that you don't have.

The pathetic one is the man with no plan who thinks he has a plan. You.

Kevin's graphs prove my point. 

You love Kevin.

And his graphs 

[eFestivals]

11 minutes ago, LJS said:

Kevin's graphs prove my point. 

You don't understand kev's graphs. You make that clear constantly.

In fact, you understand almost nothing of economics, which is something else you make clear constantly.

If you've got such a perfect handle on it, why aren't 'economists for indy' or some other knowledgeable group putting forwards what you say is so certain? Especially when the economic arguments are fatally undermining indy?

The *only* work of indy supporters you've put forwards that claims to balance the books is one that claimed the UK would pay Scottish pensions - which even you dismissed as a crock of shite. ... so why aren't all the other indy supporters as clever as you about this? 

Even Sturgeon says she can't make an economic argument stand up. But you can.

Edited March 6, 2017 by eFestivals

[LJS]

2 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

You don't understand kev's graphs. You make that clear constantly.

In fact, you understand almost nothing of economics, which is something else you make clear constantly.

If you've got such a perfect handle on it, why aren't 'economists for indy' or some other knowledgeable group putting forwards what you say is so certain? Especially when the economic arguments are fatally undermining indy?

The *only* work of indy supporters you've put forwards that claims to balance the books is one that claimed the UK would pay Scottish pensions - which even you dismissed as a crock of shite. ... so why aren't all the other indy supporters as clever as you about this? 

Even Sturgeon says she can't make an economic argument stand up. But you can.

I sometimes wonder if there is a limit to the number of famous Nicola sturgeon sayings you can invent.

Tell you what, pop it on your list of sturgeon links you are currently searching for.

Alternatively, you could stop making shit up. 

Explain to me how this shows falling expenditure, please. Since you understand economics so much better than me.

And remember, we have established these are "real terms" figures: i.e. inflation adjusted.

[eFestivals]

53 minutes ago, LJS said:

I sometimes wonder if there is a limit to the number of famous Nicola sturgeon sayings you can invent.

Tell you what, pop it on your list of sturgeon links you are currently searching for.

Alternatively, you could stop making shit up. 

says the man who posts a graph showing a fall in expenditure and then asks for an explanation for how expenditure is falling.

 

Quote

Explain to me how this shows falling expenditure, please. Since you understand economics so much better than me.

see that high point in 2010/11? See how it's lower for each year after that?

That's called "falling expenditure". 

Simple.

 

Quote

And remember, we have established these are "real terms" figures: i.e. inflation adjusted.

Yep. 

And what don't the graphs show? They don't show GDP, which has risen in the same period, and so reduced the proportional deficit by a greater amount than the cuts account for.

Again, simple.

Now, the difficult parts....

Because the whole-UK GDP is growing faster than Scottish GDP, this means that whole-UK (per-head) deficit is falling faster than Scottish (per-head) deficit.

And because deficit reduction for the whole-UK is due (if working to the osborne plan) to end when the whole-UK deficit reaches zero, and the Scottish deficit is about 6%-7% greater than the whole-UK deficit, when the UK govt stops cutting spending Scotland will still have a stonking deficit (of about £9Bn, if zero is reached for whole-UK).

And that 6%-7% deficit will *NEVER* disappear while funding comes from Westminster to Scotland with the Barnett supplement - because it's caused by the greater revenues from the Barnett supplement (which guarantees Scotland a greater amount than the UK average per-head spend), and is maintained by the SG's spending of that Barnett supplement.

So that 6%-7% *extra* deficit will only ever disappear if (one or a combination of these things)...

1. the SG doesn't spend the Barnett money - which is cuts to Scottish spending, and greater poverty for Scotland.

2. the SG is never given that Barnett money to spend - which is cuts to Scottish spending, and greater poverty for Scotland.

3. the Scottish economy outperforms the UK average by an absolutely stonking amount over a number of years, until Scottish GDP* (and so also tax revenues) is approximately 20% greater than the UK average.
(note: the Scottish economy has been performing at under the UK average while the SNP have been running Scotland ... it did better under Labour).

Unfortunately for your dream of 3, that would require Scotland to be the world's bests performing economy, which just isn't ever going to happen given the 'natural inefficiencies' of Scotland (remote from the centre of europe, low population density, & expensive geography)

* GDP: just to confuse things further, GDP is not necessarily a measure of wealth. For example, Ireland has fantastic GDP but which doesn't translate into fantastic wealth. I point this out before you go with another wacko-know-nothing idea to claim you can increase GDP quickly in much the same way as Ireland and everything is sorted.

[LJS]

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

says the man who posts a graph showing a fall in expenditure and then asks for an explanation for how expenditure is falling.

 

see that high point in 2010/11? See how it's lower for each year after that?

That's called "falling expenditure". 

Simple.

I wondered when I posted that if you would have the brass neck to pick the one most advantageous year for your case. why don't we start a couple of years earlier. the fact is that there has been no long term sustained reduction in public spending in Scotland. Meanwhile there has been a long term sustained increase in revenue, (its increased in all but 3 of the past 15 years (2 of these being the "crash years")

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

 

Yep. 

And what don't the graphs show? They don't show GDP, which has risen in the same period, and so reduced the proportional deficit by a greater amount than the cuts account for.

 Yup, one of the classic anti- austerity arguments: By increasing GDP you effectively reduce the deficit without any need for cuts in spending. Oc course if you can increase revenue at the same time, even better.

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

Again, simple.

Now, the difficult parts....

Because the whole-UK GDP is growing faster than Scottish GDP, this means that whole-UK (per-head) deficit is falling faster than Scottish (per-head) deficit.

And because deficit reduction for the whole-UK is due (if working to the osborne plan) to end when the whole-UK deficit reaches zero, and the Scottish deficit is about 6%-7% greater than the whole-UK deficit, when the UK govt stops cutting spending Scotland will still have a stonking deficit (of about £9Bn, if zero is reached for whole-UK).

So Neil, when do you think that UK deficit will disappear 5 years? 7 years? 10 years? As we are discussing Independence it certainly is not likely to be eliminated within the likely time span for Scotland to hold another referendum & move to independence. And the funny thins about independence is that what a Tory Chancellor in England does becomes entirely irrelevant to the Scottish economy. Its kind of the point of independence.

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

And that 6%-7% deficit will *NEVER* disappear while funding comes from Westminster to Scotland with the Barnett supplement - because it's caused by the greater revenues from the Barnett supplement (which guarantees Scotland a greater amount than the UK average per-head spend), and is maintained by the SG's spending of that Barnett supplement.

also irrelevant after indpendence.

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

So that 6%-7% *extra* deficit will only ever disappear if (one or a combination of these things)...

1. the SG doesn't spend the Barnett money - which is cuts to Scottish spending, and greater poverty for Scotland.

or Scotland becomes independent when the comparison becomes academic

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

2. the SG is never given that Barnett money to spend - which is cuts to Scottish spending, and greater poverty for Scotland.

or Scotland becomes independent when the comparison becomes academic

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

3. the Scottish economy outperforms the UK average by an absolutely stonking amount over a number of years, until Scottish GDP* (and so also tax revenues) is approximately 20% greater than the UK average.
(note: the Scottish economy has been performing at under the UK average while the SNP have been running Scotland ... it did better under Labour).

we're cutting the deficit at an average of over £1bn per year without any of that 20% nonsense. 

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

Unfortunately for your dream of 3,

Not my dream , your invention

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

that would require Scotland to be the world's bests performing economy, which just isn't ever going to happen given the 'natural inefficiencies' of Scotland (remote from the centre of europe, low population density, & expensive geography)

I completely agree

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

* GDP: just to confuse things further, GDP is not necessarily a measure of wealth. For example, Ireland has fantastic GDP but which doesn't translate into fantastic wealth. I point this out before you go with another wacko-know-nothing idea to claim you can increase GDP quickly in much the same way as Ireland and everything is sorted.

I agree. Its why I talk about GDP much less often than you do. 

[LJS]

Some interesting contributions to the debate.

Prof Curtice on how much we want a 2nd indyref. Surprisingly, a slightly more nuanced view than Neil had.

http://blog.whatscotlandthinks.org/2017/03/does-scotland-want-a-second-independence-referendum/

Indications that the economic case for Indy may be very different this time round...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-39178324

 And yet another great reason to say farewell to the UK.

Ministers aim to build ‘empire 2.0’ with African Commonwealth

Sam Coates, Deputy Political Editor | Marcus Leroux, Trade Correspondent

March 6 2017, 12:01am, The Times

Liam Fox, the international trade secretary, will promise to build better links with the Commonwealth when ministers from each country meet in London this weekADNAN ABIDI/REUTERS

Britain will seek to boost trade links with African Commonwealth nations this week in a move described by Whitehall officials as “empire 2.0”

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/_TP_/edition/news/ministers-aim-to-build-empire-2-0-with-african-commonwealth-after-brexit-v9bs6f6z9?ni-statuscode=acsaz-307

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Comfy Bean]

11 hours ago, eFestivals said:

he's tried suggesting that Khan said all snippers were indisputably racist. 

 

I think this was referencing me from my comments on our exchange below.....

On 3/5/2017 at 9:28 AM, eFestivals said:

He doesn't think its racist. If he did, he'd have said it. A first time, and then probably more times. Rather than not having said it or implied it or anything about it.

What is you find hard about words? Are you the living demonstration of that better Scottish education?

 

On 3/5/2017 at 9:52 AM, comfortablynumb1910 said:

Right ok. I agree with him. I don't think it's racist either.

So you disagree with Khans words. Glad we cleared that up :-)

 

Can you clarify where I said that " Khan said all snippers were indisputably racist ". 

Thankyou.

I`m still waiting on the quote from NS where you claim she said that Scotland has a greater entitlement to indy than an English city. If you made it up, please just say 

Edited March 6, 2017 by comfortablynumb1910

[LJS]

This is an astonishingly bile filled, opinionated, factless rant against sturgeon and the SNP. 

There is no shortage of such stuff on both sides. The difference here is that the writer is not some crazed yoon nutter. 

Until very recently, he was online political editor for Scottish Television. He was the subject of some controversy because as well as his journalistic role he also blogged on the STV site where, as you would expect of a blogger, he was free with his opinions which were frequently strongly anti SNP.   

I'm kind of old fashioned. I think there should be a distinction between news & comment. That battle was long ago lost in tabloid journalism. There was some outrage when a couple of SNP mp's (or msp's, I can't remember) raised some concerns about the conflict between his 2 roles. This was presented of course as bullying by the SNP. 

I'd be surprised if Neil sees any issues with any of this at all & will no doubt leap to the defence of what he will see as an impartial & unbiased view of politics in Scotland.

https://stephendaisley.com/2017/03/06/if-they-want-to-stop-indyref2-the-silent-majority-cannot-be-silent/

 

Edited March 6, 2017 by LJS

[eFestivals]

11 hours ago, LJS said:

the fact is that there has been no long term sustained reduction in public spending in Scotland.

then you need to ask yourself: why have you spent the last 7 years screaming 'tory austerity'?

All the pain you've felt has been given to you by the SNP and not the tories. 

 

Edited March 7, 2017 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

11 hours ago, LJS said:

Meanwhile there has been a long term sustained increase in revenue, (its increased in all but 3 of the past 15 years (2 of these being the "crash years")

no shit sherlock. Economies grow, who knew?

Unfortunately for Scotland its growth is very normally lesser than the UK average, meaning it's slipping further behind the UK average and not closing the gap.
(the slip has been small, but it's still a slip further away).

 

[eFestivals]

11 hours ago, LJS said:

So Neil, when do you think that UK deficit will disappear 5 years? 7 years? 10 years?

For the purposes of this conversation I've no need to make that guess/prediction.

But I will point out that if the UK deficit disappeared Scotland would still have a stonking deficit because Scotland's deficit is far bigger.

And i will point out that you have said many times (tho wrongly) that the Scotland deficit will be gone in 7 years at the current rate of reduction - which would mean that the UK deficit would be gone much sooner.

[eFestivals]

11 hours ago, LJS said:

also irrelevant after indpendence.

but the cuts caused by the loss of that Barnett money after independence will not be irrelevant.

Are you back to predicting magic again, that the deficit will disappear without revenues (taxes) being increased &/or spending being cut?

The loss of around 15% of Scottish revenues would be anything but 'irrelevant'.

Edited March 7, 2017 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

11 hours ago, LJS said:

or Scotland becomes independent when the comparison becomes academic

or Scotland becomes independent when the comparison becomes academic

But the cuts that will come from the loss of £9Bn in SG revenues is anything but academic.

They're real cuts onto real people, and they're fucking massive cuts!!!!

A £9bn reduction from £65Bn of spending is a fucking huge amount.

[LJS]

5 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

For the purposes of this conversation I've no need to make that guess/prediction.

But I will point out that if the UK deficit disappeared Scotland would still have a stonking deficit because Scotland's deficit is far bigger.

And i will point out that you have said many times (tho wrongly) that the Scotland deficit will be gone in 7 years at the current rate of reduction - which would mean that the UK deficit would be gone much sooner.

You need to stop making stuff up. I have never said the deficit would be gone in 7 years. If trends of the past 6 years continue, it would be roughly halved in 7 years.

[eFestivals]

11 hours ago, LJS said:

we're cutting the deficit at an average of over £1bn per year without any of that 20% nonsense. 

because GDP is growing and govt spending is not (or it's growing at a lesser rate, whatever. A lower rate of growth for spending then for GDP is effectively a cut in spending).

Which means the deficit only gets addressed by cuts.

You know, nasty tory things.

Which you welcome as indy salvation.

[eFestivals]

3 minutes ago, LJS said:

You need to stop making stuff up. I have never said the deficit would be gone in 7 years. If trends of the past 6 years continue, it would be roughly halved in 7 years.

it matters not a fuck how long it takes.

What matters is that it's achieved by cutting spending (as a proportion of GDP).

Which you used to call nasty and tory, but now you welcome as indy salvation.

[eFestivals]

11 hours ago, LJS said:

I agree. Its why I talk about GDP much less often than you do. 

PMSL - you're the geezer who lauds its growth as indy salvation.

I'm pointing out it's not. The deficit will only disappear if Scotland refuses the barnett money. It cannot happen any other way.

[LJS]

8 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

But the cuts that will come from the loss of £9Bn in SG revenues is anything but academic.

They're real cuts onto real people, and they're fucking massive cuts!!!!

A £9bn reduction from £65Bn of spending is a fucking huge amount.

But the cuts that will come from the loss of £9Bn in SG revenues is anything but academic.

They're real cuts onto real people, and they're fucking massive cuts!!!!

A £9bn reduction from £65Bn of spending is a fucking huge amount.

The UK has a deficit of about £70bn so by your logic the chancellor will be announcing £70bn of cuts tomorrow.

Or does that only work in Scotland?

[eFestivals]

11 hours ago, LJS said:

Some interesting contributions to the debate.

Prof Curtice on how much we want a 2nd indyref. Surprisingly, a slightly more nuanced view than Neil had.

http://blog.whatscotlandthinks.org/2017/03/does-scotland-want-a-second-independence-referendum/

It's not saying anything I haven't been thinking.

The problem for indy is that there's still 55% against indy, and nothing of that looks like changing.

 

Quote

Indications that the economic case for Indy may be very different this time round...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-39178324

Yep, as I said. The economic case for indy this time round will be "vote indy, vote poverty".

Because, as I've been telling you constantly and you've been telling me I'm wrong, there's no economic case that can be made for indy.

The books can only be made to balance via massive cuts &/or tax rises.

Because £9bn of revenues - wealth (and circling wealth) - will be removed from the scottish economy each and every year.

Which is more than any tory has ever taken from Scotland.

Edited March 7, 2017 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

5 minutes ago, LJS said:

The UK has a deficit of about £70bn so by your logic the chancellor will be announcing £70bn of cuts tomorrow.

Or does that only work in Scotland?

Oh, here we go again, you playing the fucking stupid moron just because you think it has a point.

The UK deficit is about 1/3rd of the Scottish deficit.

The UK has the best credit history in the world. Scotland has no credit history.

The UK has shown its able to make the hard choices to balance its books, while people like you say "spend spend spend and don't worry where the money is coming from". If you were lending your money, which of the two do you trust to pay you back?

(will you spout the know-nothing "it'll never be paid off" here? I'll point out it's all* paid off every 15 years).

[* apart from a few WW1 bonds still kicking around which never mature]

Care to show me the places with a deficit of 10% like Scotland and no plan to make cuts to address it? How are they doing?

All deficits are not the same. That you try to suggest they are only shows how brain dead you are or how far you're prepared to take a lie in order to con the Scottish people (only you know which of those it is ... tho if you think it's neither, it's the thick as pigshit option ).

[eFestivals]

10 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

I think this was referencing me from my comments on our exchange below.....

 

Can you clarify where I said that " Khan said all snippers were indisputably racist ". 

Thankyou.

Khan didn't call anyone racist.

Can you say that truth? If you can, we can move on.

If you can't, show me where he said snippers were racist.

Or shut the fuck up with everything about Khan, the only thing you want discussed becauqse you know you lose on all other discussions.

 

10 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

I`m still waiting on the quote from NS where you claim she said that Scotland has a greater entitlement to indy than an English city. If you made it up, please just say 

I asked you a question first. You're still running from it, but when you've answered it I'll answer yours.

I asked you to tell me what relevance does "Scotland is a country" have to any discussion about the EU or English cities? 

Yes, we know you and Sturgeon think Scotland is a country. We know it so very much there's not need to say it.

So why say it? What relevance or point did it have in the discussion where you heard her say it within a discussion of english cities and EU?

You seem shy of addressing this question. Is there a reason why?

[eFestivals]

9 hours ago, LJS said:

This is an astonishingly bile filled, opinionated, factless rant against sturgeon and the SNP. 

There is no shortage of such stuff on both sides. The difference here is that the writer is not some crazed yoon nutter. 

Until very recently, he was online political editor for Scottish Television. He was the subject of some controversy because as well as his journalistic role he also blogged on the STV site where, as you would expect of a blogger, he was free with his opinions which were frequently strongly anti SNP.   

I'm kind of old fashioned. I think there should be a distinction between news & comment. That battle was long ago lost in tabloid journalism. There was some outrage when a couple of SNP mp's (or msp's, I can't remember) raised some concerns about the conflict between his 2 roles. This was presented of course as bullying by the SNP. 

I'd be surprised if Neil sees any issues with any of this at all & will no doubt leap to the defence of what he will see as an impartial & unbiased view of politics in Scotland.

https://stephendaisley.com/2017/03/06/if-they-want-to-stop-indyref2-the-silent-majority-cannot-be-silent/

 

just read the first bit, and he's nailed it.

I remember a guy who used to support indy because he said wanted to help the poor. Now he doesn't give a stuff about what might happen to the poor.

I know a guy who used to say he wouldn't vote for indy if the poor were impacted because the SNP had no economic plan. Now he says there won't be an economic plan.

I know a guy who used to moan about tory austerity. Now he welcomes it.

I know a guy who used to blame austerity on the tories. Now he says there's no austerity and gives no one the blame.

That article would be better if it hadn't started with "Nicola Sturgeon wants you to be afraid. Nicola Sturgeon wants you to be angry. Nicola Sturgeon wants you to be cowed." It should have gone with the much-simpler "Nicola Sturgeon wants you to be stupid".