Forum menu
Pretty much anything....
Actually it is interesting (genuinely) to take the formal documentation from both sides and to read the main text (not the selective summaries) and compare and contrast.
Joking (and knocking AS) apart it is very interesting how, in the case of currency options, both sides base their analysis on the concept of an optimum currency area first and then the well-documented pros and cons of each option (nb you have to read beyond the exec summary to get this). It's a bit dry (the theory) and largely well documented up until the point of the summaries (again).
You can make your own judgment on how they get to the conclusion and on what basis (ie no one goes for AS latest punt, yes no one) but you should also think why do both sides start with OCA theory? Simple because the UK fits and guess where that leads to - union not independence. Hence AS finds it so hard to squirm around this simple fact. The central economic argument (not nec the pol one) is staggeringly clear which is why BT stick to it and why AS is floundering.
Based on what?
Google "Alex Salmond half truths".
My top hit: http://www.express.co.uk/scotland/444095/Comment-Facts-expose-the-financial-fantasies-of-Alex-Salmond
Admittedly I don't like the Express as I'm a closet leftie, but the same facts have been peddled out by most nationals, albeit surrounded by different opinion.
A bit further down: http://www.cityam.com/article/1392616119/salmond-keeps-contradicting-himself-scottish-independence
London-centric, but same story.
So let's go to Scotland: http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/scottish-independence-fm-stands-firm-on-currency-1-3504622
Don't know about you, but a decision on what money you're going to spend seems pretty important to me.
As for nationalistic posturing: "In an open letter published yesterday, Salmond said he would not consider a Plan B because he would not settle for second best for Scotland."
Personally I'd be gunning for the euro, but I'm not Salmond.
Like I said: My feeling is that the referendum is flawed by several things, primarily Alex Salmond's use of flawed half-truths and emotional rhetoric to gain traction. My worry is that he is screwing an iScotland before it's even had a chance to prove what it can do.
If he had concrete arguments and plans that seemed feasible I would personally take him more seriously. But to me, working in marketing, all it looks like is he's trying to stir up emotion, putting heart before head, and getting the blood rich with nationalistic fervour by those not smart enough to look beyond the Saltire and tory MPs in 'the south'.
Compare GDP with GNI to take into account how much output (GDP) comes from foreign based countries who repatriate part of the profits (in GNI) and the story doesn't look as rosy. Oddly, some yS folk seem irrationally against foreign ownership so not sure how they square that circle.
piemonster - Member
I'm not sure how much "blame" you can really lay at the feet of Salmond.
A lot. He is the face of the independence campaign and has taken deceit and lies to an unparalleled height. His retreat this week into it's our currency and we will walk away from the debt makes the extent of his deceit 100% clear. He is a political bully who flip flops with the wind - a chancer and an opportunist is how he was described in one paper this week. He has had a political lifetime to prepare for 18/9 but instead of doing this properly he has blagged it. Simple, basic questions left unanswered. For that he shouldn't be forgiven by either side.
The whole thing has turned out to be an expensive vanity project. The UK deserves so much better.
Foreign based "countries" THM?
Pimpmaster whilst I get your point there are two problems
1. newspapers are not impartial purveyors of facts but paddlers of agenda full half truths [ oh the irony] just like politicians.
2. Every single politician lies.
About 1,900,000 results (0.47 seconds) - AS
About 4,430,000 results (0.17 seconds)- cameron
About 2,130,000 results (0.38 seconds) - Blair
I would not read much into these "facts"
THM it is almost as if you are biased and dont like him
EDIT:
Oddly, some yS folk seem irrationally against foreign ownership so not sure how they square that circle.
What circle?
they do not like foreign ownership and much of their traditional industries [ oil, finance, salmon and whiskey] are foreign owned
What do they need to square here?
As uses GDP for the same reason you use GNI - they make your case look stronger.
an independent Scotland will have a requirement for 20-25 patrol vessels and a £2.5bn defense budget, enough to keep the Clyde yards busy for years.
Nonsense.
Where did you get that info from?
The Scottish Navy will be made up of existing RN vessels, it will not require 20 - 25 new build vessels. Besides, why would Scotland waste money building simple patrol vessels on the Clyde? ~Much cheaper to build them in the Far East.
The Clyde shipyards are only kept open by huge Uk subsidies. They are doomed in an independant Scotland.
Sorry iPad autocorrect while having lunch
It's should be foreign companies.
GNI for Scotland < GDP due to rel high levels of foreign ownership of key industries.
It's a technical point and would be missed where it not for the DO banging on about Scotland being one of the richest countries in the developed world. On GNI per cap basis, this is simply not true - now there's a shock.
To be fair unlike understanding the nature of a currency, GNI calc is notoriously tricky!!!
Google "Alex Salmond half truths".
Hahahahahahah. Is that where you get your information? I appear to have mistaken you for an educated person.
And as for the Scotsman article you pointed to, I know a few of the people who are in elevated positions in that newspaper. A couple I went to school with and I can count one as a former brother inlaw - to a man they all despise Scotland and always have done. It's almost as if they think of it as a third world country. They are against reasoned debate too.
And with that, wanmankylung argued himself into the hallowed ranks of "unhinged forum posters".
Do tell us, Enlightened One, of a better tool to find information than Google. It returns search results which provide facts and opinion biased towards either direction, and everything inbetween. It's the role of the individual to sort the wheat from the chaff. By discrediting the use of Google, you've just ended up in the chaff.
Or is Google part of Project Fear too?
Is that the best you can do - Googling for newspaper stories?
Pimpmaster whilst I get your point there are two problems1. newspapers are not impartial purveyors of facts but paddlers of agenda full half truths [ oh the irony] just like politicians.
2. Every single politician lies.
About 1,900,000 results (0.47 seconds) - AS
About 4,430,000 results (0.17 seconds)- cameron
About 2,130,000 results (0.38 seconds) - BlairI would not read much into these "facts"
THM it is almost as if you are biased and dont like him
😆
I know, but it's the best we have.
I hear that 97% of statistics are made up too.
😉
I appear to have mistaken you for an educated person.
There's your first mistake. 😉
The Clyde shipyards are only kept open by huge Uk subsidies. They are doomed in an independant Scotland.
Well, subsidies are a tool of economic policy and if an iS is to be more fair than UK, who is to say that subsidising uneconomic production rather than leaving employment to market forces won't be policy in iS.
About 53,100,000 in 0.43 seconds.
With that many results in such little time it must be true.
But then again I don't believe everything that google turns up.
A couple I went to school with and I can count one as a former brother inlaw - to a man they all despise Scotland and always have done.
Given their job they must hate getting out of bed in the morning...
No, they all love their job as they get to publish anti-scottish rubbish. It's really quite funny because they never put their name to an article but each has their very own distinctive writing style that I can recognise anywhere.
What is it that you find disturbing jambalaya? Are some licences purchased, while others paying the same fee are only leasing the licence?
@gordimohr, bribery
Those of us who don't have a vote but wish Scotland to remain in the UK are not anti Scottish at all. We want Scotland to remain in the Union was we believe we are better together. We believe Scots add something to our national mix and identity. If we where anti-Scottish we would want rid of "you". It is the Yes campaign and supporters who try and create a convoluted version of events which say the UK wants to keep Scotland only so Westminster can laud it over the Scots and steal all "your" natural resources.
well played pimpmaster good use of humour LIKES 😆
We want Scotland to remain in the Union was we believe we are better together.
Of course you believe you are better together. That's because YOU are better together. We subsidise the rUK to the tune of around £4Bn/yr, we have a load of oil and keep the balance of payments and sterling in a reasonably OK state etc etc etc.
YOU are better together, WE are better apart.
No, they all love their job as they get to publish anti-scottish rubbish. It's really quite funny because they never put their name to an article but each has their very own distinctive writing style that I can recognise anywhere.
Credit where it's due.
Attack The System from the inside! Project Fear WILL SUCCEED!
About 53,100,000 in 0.43 seconds.
With that many results in such little time it must be true.
But then again I don't believe everything that google turns up.
😆
I suppose if you don't know how Google works, then the fact that others do will lead you to simultaneous feelings of confusion and anger.
well played pimpmaster good use of humour LIKES
😆
Ithankque.
We subsidise the rUK to the tune of around £4Bn/yr
I know you frown upon the use of Google, but if you take some time to sit down and figure it out, it'll lead you to [url= http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2014/03/7888 ]this page[/url] from the Scottish Government website. Look at the summary and then tell me how public revenue of £53.1 billion vs public expenditure of £65.2 billion equates to Scotland subsidising the UK?
Or is standard grade maths a Project Fear conspiracy too?
I get that point WML, but am unconvinced at present that Scotland has a sufficiently diverse economy to continue to generate the same level of GDP, once the constructs of the UK are removed.
Where do you believe [i]new[/i] growth will come from?
Very quickly, as I need to do some work.
I'd like to thank you all for a good discussion over the past few hours, wanmankylung for making me smile and this comment from The Flying Ox for having me in tears over my keyboard.
I suppose if you don't know how Google works, then the fact that others do will lead you to simultaneous feelings of confusion and anger.
Now I [i]really[/i] need to do some work.
Look at the summary and then tell me how public revenue of £53.1 billion vs public expenditure of £65.2 billion equates to Scotland subsidising the UK?
[url= http://wingsoverscotland.com/weebluebook/ ]Wee Blue Book[/url] page 9 onwards 😉
Or, if you don't want to read that, at least go read up on why almost every country in the world spends more money than it takes. The difference is made up in borrowing.
In the case of Scotland, Scotland provides 9.9% of the revenue but receives 9.7% of the spending.
Where do you believe new growth will come from?
Where do I believe that new growth will come from? Arts, business, tourism, energy of whichever type you fancy, academia, engineering design. Probably not manufacturing as that ship has sailed.
Or, if you don't want to read that, at least go read up on why almost every country in the world spends more money than it takes. The difference is made up in borrowing.In the case of Scotland, Scotland provides 9.9% of the revenue but receives 9.7% of the spending.
You can make % say anything, and that helps because it obfuscates the actual numbers. Now I don't know what numbers you're using, but the ones available on the Scottish Government website suggest that Scotland provides 8.2% of the UK's total public revenue whilst receiving 9.3% of the UK's total public expenditure. Even if you were to alter the numbers to give Scotland a geographical share of NS oil revenues, the flow of money is into Scotland rather than out. Put simply, whilst Scotland contributes around £800 per head more in tax to the UK coffers, it receives around £1300 per head more in public spend. There is no possible construction of the word "subsidy" that results in these figures equating to Scotland subsidising the rest of the UK.
energy of whichever type you fancy
If only we could harness the power of 'hot air' the current production levels would see us into the next millennium.
I wonder why the book uses those figures Ben? Why not use the latest ones;
Revenue = 53.1bilion (9.1% of UK total 583billion)
Expenditure = 65.2billion (9.3% of UK total 701billion)
Deficit = 12.1billion
Population share of borrowing = 10billion (8.4% of 118.5)
Revenue and expenditure from GERS so feel free to knock a couple of billion off for the real revenue figures
Scotland provides 9.9% of the revenue but receives 9.7% of the spending
This was about page 3 of this thread wasn't it? - which is bigger 9.9% of the revenue or 9,7% of the spending?
Jambalaya obviously you would like Scots to remain in a union where in your description the Scots taxpayer rents the public institutions such as HMRC where as the taxpayers from England Wales and Northern Ireland own those same institutions by paying the very same taxes. The question is why on earth would any one in Scotland want to remain part of a union like that?
You don't - you own it
for as long as you remain part of the United Kingdom.
[i]*terms and conditions apply your home may be at risk if you do not keep up with payments.[/i]
Do you really think we are not going to compete for hub traffic and have a suitable international hub in Scotland to meet our needs?
Interestingly who would be the hub airline? Logan air? You could expand EDI or GLA but you can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it drink.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-27775468
EDI or GLA may attract new passengers from outwith Scotland, which in turn may attract new business from airlines. GLA is up for sale, on of the current shareholders are expected to take ownership. There are plans for expansion.
Rick Draper - Member
"Do you really think we are not going to compete for hub traffic and have a suitable international hub in Scotland to meet our needs?"
Interestingly who would be the hub airline? Logan air? You could expand EDI or GLA but you can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it drink.
Oh, that's right, we're too dumb to be able to organise anything big like that to [i]meet our needs[/i] ie people who want to fly directly to Scotland.
[url= http://willhillbet.tumblr.com/post/94438394233/79-of-scots-backing-yes ]Meanwhile a poll by those who put their money where their mouth is[/url]
Everybody that bets always wins don't they 🙄
Meanwhile in the real world no poll worth mentioning has ever put the yes vote in a wining position.
Everybody that bets always wins don't they
Meanwhile in the real world no poll worth mentioning has ever put the yes vote in a wining position.
True, but as the last Scottish Elections prove. The electorate can swing quite quickly, and quite far. Although the polling for this often ends up somewhat misrepresented.
I don't buy into any expression of confidence in the result of this referendum. Nobody truly knows. I find some of the confidence expressed by both sides quite odd at times. Unless Amazon have been flogging Crystal Balls and I'm unawares.
we're too dumb to be able to organise anything big like that to meet our needs ie people who want to fly directly to Scotland.
Nothing to do with that- its to do with having a critical mass of people who want to travel that route big enough to make running flights there economically viable, and with enough flights to make the infrastructure of a transport hub pay for itself.
See Ciudad Real airport in Spain as a perfect example!
pie monster you are citing the only miodern example I can think of where they got it wrong
I doubt very much all the polls are incorrect and I would be surprised if the yes vote is more than 40%
I do agree the dont knows can still swing it though and turnout may also be a factor. I still think you need some faith to think yes will win currently though.
[quote=Junkyard ]pie monster you are citing the only miodern example I can think of where they got it wrong Is 1992 not modern enough?
Junkyard - lazarus
pie monster you are citing the only miodern example I can think of where they got it wrong
I know.
But it's a favoured line of Yes voters. And I've never had the chance to use it before. Usually some zealous yes voter gets in before me.
Edit: googles 1992
Edit edit: [url= http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shy_Tory_Factor ]Not sure I'd have mentioned this[/url]
Why am I not shocked that the DO's Independence Bonus turns out to be completely bogus. More BS and lies.
I had expected this still to be a close vote but perhaps the reality really is sinking home. This whole notion has been built on sands of deceit that are now being washed away with the passing of every tide.