The Dirty Independence Question

[Comfy Bean]

Had a wee chuckle at Willie Rennie being interviewed on the radio when I was coming home earlier. 

Do the Libs support another referendum at the conclusion of the brexit negotiations ?

Yes ...sorry no ....well yes ....and no ....do you mean in the uk ....or Scotland....or both ?

 

[eFestivals]

11 hours ago, LJS said:

SNP manifesto 2017:

• Hold a second independence referendum "at the end of the Brexit process"

SNP today:

Ms Sturgeon stressed that she continued to be "strongly committed" to Scotland having a choice on its future at the end of the Brexit process.

a 25 minute speech to say nothing has changed? Perhaps she should be up on a charge of wasting govt time, then?

Meanwhile, I look forwards to seeing that timetable fulfilled, when the SNP will have 6 months to pass the holyrood legislation, create a new plan for iScotland, publish it, discuss it, and hold the vote.

Back in the real world, it's now off until 2020 at earliest, which really means it can't happen before the next Holyrood elections in 2021, which means the SNP having a manifesto promising one in 2023 in their 2021 manifesto.

I'm quite happy to say that things can go all ways between now and 2021 or 2023, but one of those 'all ways' might be the rejection of that indyref at the 2021 elections - and given how the GE just went and the current levels of support for indy that looks the most likely right now.

PS: if it's not about the money, why the wait until more about the money is known?

 

[eFestivals]

hey LJS, if nothing has changed, what was it that Sturgeon is having to 'reset'?

 

[LJS]

11 hours ago, eFestivals said:

hey LJS, if nothing has changed, what was it that Sturgeon is having to 'reset'?

 

i reset my wireless router the other day.

It worked exactly the same as it did before.

Do feel free to read Nicola's speech in full and point out the u-turn

https://www.snp.org/nicola_sturgeon_s_statement_on_eu_negotiations_and_scotland_s_future

 

 

[eFestivals]

11 hours ago, LJS said:

i reset my wireless router the other day.

It worked exactly the same as it did before.

Do feel free to read Nicola's speech in full and point out the u-turn

https://www.snp.org/nicola_sturgeon_s_statement_on_eu_negotiations_and_scotland_s_future

who said it was "a u-turn"? Not me.

The vote is delayed. 100% definitely, cannot be anything else.

Because there simply cannot be the time to do all of the necessaries from scratch, from nothing-done to a vote held, in the (supposed) 6 months between a deal agreed and the UK leaving the EU.

The vote is delayed. Go on, tell me it's not.

The above is pretty easy to predict, because that would be an impossible timescale. My prediction beyond that? Read on....

In 2019 Sturgeon will be told again 'no', that she has to get a clear unequivocal mandate for another indyref, so come back after the 2021 holyrood elections.

And so Sturgeon will be forced to campaign for holyrood on holding a ref that only 40% (max) have any desire to hold, will probably fail to get a majority, and that'll be that (for a while at least).

[eFestivals]

11 hours ago, LJS said:

i reset my wireless router the other day.

It worked exactly the same as it did before.

did you need to stand up and make a 25 minute speech to say your router was still working just as it was before? :P

[LJS]

GERS is out!

Gers figures: Scottish economy deficit cut to £13.3bn

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-41011648

 

I would suggest there is something for everyone here. Neil & & his mate Kevin will be able to continue to bang on about the huge deficit.

While I can bang on about the "fact" that it's falling & "non-North Sea revenue increased by 6.1%, from £54.5bn in 2015/16 to £57.8b"

everyone's a winner

 

[eFestivals]

19 minutes ago, LJS said:

GERS is out!

Gers figures: Scottish economy deficit cut to £13.3bn

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-41011648

 

I would suggest there is something for everyone here. Neil & & his mate Kevin will be able to continue to bang on about the huge deficit.

While I can bang on about the "fact" that it's falling & "non-North Sea revenue increased by 6.1%, from £54.5bn in 2015/16 to £57.8b"

everyone's a winner

 

that 6.1% increase in revenues is certainly impressive. Any ideas what's caused it?

The other thing that jumps out is that Scotland is taking an even greater proportion of UK expenditure than last year, meaning the Barnet advantage has grown even further. I wonder which other part of the UK has taken the hit to make the place that already proclaimed itself as the richest part even richer.

And I do love the way that every single year they summarise it slightly differently, which suggests that the less-positive stuff is being hidden so that comparisons can't be made easily - tho of course it could be found within the deeper data, but i doubt many look at that; Kev probably will, tho.

[eFestivals]

from the article...

Scottish ministers are already underlining that this is just the position "under current constitutional arrangements", stressing that no conclusions about the finances of an independent Scotland should be drawn from them.

OMFG, fact denial is now official Scottish Govt policy.

While it's true that the numbers would undoubtedly be different for an indy Scotland and with everything else remaining equal (apart from some movement of Scottish-allocated spending to within Scotland from rUK [tho fairly minimal in the round, as other stuff will go the other way]) - and most probably better (tho not guaranteed) for Scotland ...

To write them off as meaningless is laughable for all of the time that spending hugely exceeds revenues and no one is able to identify significant savings in spending.

The only person who's had a proper go at identifying savings from spending is Salmond in the 2014 write paper, and he only found £600M.

As Sturgeon herself admitted, Scotland has that greater deficit because it costs more to run than the rest of the UK - which means it would have to out-perform the rest of the UK by quite a lot just to keep things as they are ... and the geographics and demographics mean it just won't, not ever (unless with a gift from heaven such as another oil boom).

[eFestivals]

from the article...

But she repeated her warnings that the country's long-term economic success was being threatened by Brexit.

While that's true, a much bigger threat is independence, but weirdly that doesn't concern her.

 

[LJS]

32 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

from the article...

Quote

Scottish ministers are already underlining that this is just the position "under current constitutional arrangements", stressing that no conclusions about the finances of an independent Scotland should be drawn from them.

 

OMFG, fact denial is now official Scottish Govt policy.

 

 

Quote

It is important to remember that GERS takes the current constitutional settlement as given. If the very purpose of independence is to take different choices about the type of economy and society that we live in, then a set of accounts based upon the current constitutional settlement and policy priorities will tell us little about the long-term finances of an independent Scotland.

https://fraserofallander.org/2017/08/23/government-expenditure-and-revenue-scotland-2016-17/#more-2781

[eFestivals]

23 minutes ago, LJS said:

 

https://fraserofallander.org/2017/08/23/government-expenditure-and-revenue-scotland-2016-17/#more-2781

did you notice the bit where it says the Scottish deficit will settle at 6% to 7% (based on a UK deficit of zero)?

Someone round here might have been telling you that for years,m while you said it was false. Is your reference to that doc a u-turn and an admission that I was correct after all?

(or are you instead really disbelieving what you've put forwards as proof?)

 

23 minutes ago, LJS said:

to take different choices

different choices, but ones where no one is ever able to say what those different choices would be.

Because in the context of the numbers - that 6-7% deficit above the UK rate (fixed as that by how Barnet works) - those different choices mean cuts.

That "we'll make different choices" thing wasn't being used before the indyref. There's a reason why that "we'll make different choices" thing has become the standard for batting off what GERS says.

Go on, you've brain enough to admit to why.

Edited August 23, 2017 by eFestivals

[LJS]

21 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

did you notice the bit where it says the Scottish deficit will settle at 6% to 7% (based on a UK deficit of zero)?

Yes , I saw that bit and that sounds plausible.

As long as Scotland remains part of the UK.

21 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Someone round here might have been telling you that for years,m while you said it was false. Is your reference to that doc a u-turn and an admission that I was correct after all?

No 

21 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

(or are you instead really disbelieving what you've put forwards as proof?)

No. It's just that I understand it.

21 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

different choices, but ones where no one is ever able to say what those different choices would be.

I presume these choices would be laid out in the various parties' election manifestos in our first election in an independent Scotland.

21 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Because in the context of the numbers - that 6-7% deficit above the UK rate (fixed as that by how Barnet works) - those different choices mean cuts.

Fixed by Barnett only works whilst we remain in the UK.

21 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

That "we'll make different choices" thing wasn't being used before the indyref. There's a reason why that "we'll make different choices" thing has become the standard for batting off what GERS says.

The whole point of Indy is and always has been to make different choices.

21 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Go on, you've brain enough to admit to why

see above.

[eFestivals]

5 minutes ago, LJS said:

As long as Scotland remains part of the UK. keeps spending at current levels.

Corrected for you.

as long as revenues and spending remain (ballpark, & inflation adjusted) roughly what they are.

As Scotland will never long-term outperform the UK (without something like an oil miracle) whether part of the UK or not - because it's so strongly linked to rUK performance - the only option is cuts in spending.

[eFestivals]

16 minutes ago, LJS said:

No 

ok, you dismiss the evidence you've presented. Fair enough.

 

16 minutes ago, LJS said:

I presume these choices would be laid out in the various parties' election manifestos in our first election in an independent Scotland.

Yep, if you think misleading the people of Scotland is a good thing.

A far better thing would be for the consequences of indy to be admitted before deciding to be indy - so those options should be laid out before any vote.

The refusal to do that by SNP politicians is why you won't be having a vote next year, in case it's passed you by.

16 minutes ago, LJS said:

Fixed by Barnett only works whilst we remain in the UK.

and when you take away Barnet...? FFS.

It means you have to find the missing Barnet money or make cuts to cover for it.

16 minutes ago, LJS said:

The whole point of Indy is and always has been to make different choices.

So everyone keeps on saying, while refusing to say what those different choices would be.

And that's because? They don't want to admit to having to make massive cuts.

It's a choice, but it's not a free choice. The reality of the economics limit the choices to *only* big cuts. The only free choice Scotland will have is where those cuts get to fall.

 

Edited August 23, 2017 by eFestivals

[LJS]

6 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Corrected for you.

as long as revenues and spending remain (ballpark, & inflation adjusted) roughly what they are.

As Scotland will never long-term outperform the UK (without something like an oil miracle) whether part of the UK or not - because it's so strongly linked to rUK performance - the only option is cuts in spending.

I can't remember if it's 6 or 7 years our on shore deficit has been decreasing by a pretty consistent £1bn per year. 

I understand why that would stop if we  remain in the UK once the UK deficit eventually ends. That does not apply if we leave the UK.

[eFestivals]

17 minutes ago, LJS said:

I can't remember if it's 6 or 7 years our on shore deficit has been decreasing by a pretty consistent £1bn per year. 

I understand why that would stop if we  remain in the UK once the UK deficit eventually ends. That does not apply if we leave the UK.

I'm pleased to see this finally admitted in a clear manner.

Is that you advocating those cuts that you recognise as necessary, then?

Indy at any price? ... or at least, a harder price than even the tories would serve up to Scotland.

[LJS]

11 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

I'm pleased to see this finally admitted in a clear manner.

Is that you advocating those cuts that you recognise as necessary, then?

Indy at any price? ... or at least, a harder price than even the tories would serve up to Scotland.

I'm not clear what I'm supposed to be "admitting"

I'm stating that the deficit that matters (that's the onshore one) has been consistently shrinking. I concede that it may well stop doing that once the UK deficit disappears (whenever that is) if we are still in the UK at that time. If we are independent, I would expect a Scottish Government to pursue policies which continue to bring the deficit down. 

And before you start  on about cuts - please note that the reduction in Scotland's deficit has been achieved almost entirely through growing revenue - not cutting spending.

[gary1979666]

Ah, so as part of the UK it will consistently shrink and then stop.  But under indy it won't stop, but continue to shrink until there's a surplus?

I guess that's one way it could go.  Similarly, it could go the other way.....

 

[LJS]

2 minutes ago, gary1979666 said:

Ah, so as part of the UK it will consistently shrink and then stop.  But under indy it won't stop, but continue to shrink until there's a surplus?

I guess that's one way it could go.  Similarly, it could go the other way.....

 

Of course. There are no guarantees of anything - either in or out of the UK

[eFestivals]

50 minutes ago, LJS said:

And before you start  on about cuts - please note that the reduction in Scotland's deficit has been achieved almost entirely through growing revenue - not cutting spending.

As has the whole-UKs. It's called 'bounce back' after a recession.

There's also the effect caused by Scotland's (not real, but relative) population shrinkage, which gifts Scotland extra cash.

[eFestivals]

36 minutes ago, LJS said:

Of course. There are no guarantees of anything - either in or out of the UK

but there is the guarantee (unless something radical happens before indy) that Scotland is starting from a position where fairly radical measures will need to be taken to get the deficit to somewhere that the likes of the international money markets think of as reasonable - which is likely to involve instant cuts of bigger (in percentage terms) than the tories ever attempted.

And, as you've loved to point out, Osbone failed to meet his own deficit reduction targets, which only shows how difficult it really is to cut. If the 'evil' tories can't do the necessary cutting, just how think how tortured 'left leaning' Scotland would be about it.

Me, I can't see Scotland being willing to take the extra and unnecessary pain for some uncertain gains. And neither can many indy supporters, which is why most (including the SG in its response to GERS) keep up a knowing lie that there's no pain.

If Scotland were really holding its politicians to account it should be outraged by the sheer duplicity of that SG statement today.

[eFestivals]

just saw this tweeted.... you need to click thru to it to see the following parts.

It appears to be the case that the normal claim of Scotland generating x% of the oil revenues has been overstated by five or ten percent, and the SG have owned up to it (revising previous GERS downwards).

That's what I've understood from this, anyway.

[Comfy Bean]

7 hours ago, eFestivals said:

That "we'll make different choices" thing wasn't being used before the indyref. 

Lol 

It was being said constantly but only those actually listening would hear it I suppose :-)

The other big ref clearly demonstrated the possibility of different choices being made. 

[eFestivals]

10 hours ago, Comfy Bean said:

Lol 

It was being said constantly but only those actually listening would hear it I suppose :-)

The other big ref clearly demonstrated the possibility of different choices being made. 

Wanting to make different choices was.

That being able to make different choices makes GERS an irrelevance for an iScotland's future was not.

It's the last desperate attempt at fact denial by those who know they can't make a decent case with the facts in mind.