[Closed] Osbourne says no to currency union.

teamhurtmore - Member
Never mind, it's not about the financials is it!?!

There' are 1.25 trillion in assets that the UK hold

Yeah, but that figure includes a huge amount of fixed assets that can't be liquidated, and you're already getting at the very least a fair share of these (Hospitals, forests, schools etc. - much of which was built with that pesky debt stuff)

When you let the debt outstrip the assets, I call that bad management.

ninfan - Member
There' are 1.25 trillion in assets that the UK hold
Yeah, but that figure includes a huge amount of fixed assets that can't be liquidated, and you're already getting at the very least a fair share of these (Hospitals, forests, schools etc. - much of which was built with that pesky debt stuff)

konabunny - Member
You've never bought a house on a mortgage, then.

And all these things will go into scotlands balance sheet.

Agreed, which makes nonsense of the claims regards 'fair share of the assets' doesn't it!

When you let the debt outstrip the assets, I call that bad management. Another good reason to go it alone.

Do you actually know anything about economics at all, other than the Grandmother's Common Sense school?

Or are you just spouting off?

ninfan - Member
And all these things will go into scotlands balance sheet.
Agreed, which makes nonsense of the claims regards 'fair share of the assets' doesn't it!

molgrips - Member
When you let the debt outstrip the assets, I call that bad management. Another good reason to go it alone.
Do you actually know anything about economics at all, other than the Grandmother's Common Sense school?

Or are you just spouting off?

I'll happily admit I know bugger all. It's not particularly difficult to read a balance sheet though.

Deficit, balance sheet....FFS, can we stop mixing things up!!!

I know it hard when you read yS propaganda but please.....

Oh, a balance sheet is called a balance sheet because it balances.

Seosamh, you are doing a great job of falsifying at least one part of that final line!!

[url= http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2011/11/scotland-12288-union-public ]Enough of the Scottish subsidy myth[/url]

molgrips - Member
"When you let the debt outstrip the assets, I call that bad management. Another good reason to go it alone."
Do you actually know anything about economics at all, other than the Grandmother's Common Sense school?

When the bailiff is at the door, you can't pay back your debt with economics. They use arithmetic.

That good enough? 🙂

You might want to check that!!!!

As you were.

I did: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_of_England

This reminds me exactly of the discussions I have with my accountant. Long, interminable discussions about whether a spanner is a capital asset or stuff like that. It's fascinating for those that like that kind of thing, but not for the rest of us.

But here's the direct comparison - often he'll phone up in a fluster wanting to know minutiae of things I can't remember, but when I ask him what the tax implication is, turns out it's usually nothing or next to nothing.

When the bailiff is at the door, you can't pay back your debt with economics. They use arithmetic.

It doesn't quite work like that for countries.

I'll happily admit I know bugger all.

Ok, so maybe you are accepting the 'facts' that confirm what you want to believe, and considering the rest as untrue? This is called confirmation bias and needs to be watched out for.

molgrips - Member

It doesn't quite work like that for countries.

OK, economics is the bullshit you use to borrow more than you can pay back?

I'll master it one day... 🙂

Yes, and it works too.

In simple terms, countries borrow against their future ability to pay back. Like companies do when they invest to grow. Quite normal, just not for individuals.

molgrips - Member
When the bailiff is at the door, you can't pay back your debt with economics. They use arithmetic.
It doesn't quite work like that for countries.

I'll happily admit I know bugger all.
Ok, so maybe you are accepting the 'facts' that confirm what you want to believe, and considering the rest as untrue? This is called confirmation bias and needs to be watched out for.

What facts am I getting wrong?

Scotland will get a share of assets.
Scotland will get a share of debt.
Scotland will have a deficit.
Scotland will be able to manage this.

Ben, try the BOE website, it will clear it up. How much does the accountant get paid BTW?

Lets see what that does to the value of the pound eh?

Well, at least this bit was correct - pound weaker, UK borrowing costs up today (good job they balance each other) - but don't say we haven't been warned.

If you are a cash-rich exporter you will be happy with the yS shenanigans at least.

Who's claiming that scotland won't come out of the negotiations with a share of the deficit(and don't say Salmond, surely we can all agree that's just a starting position).

I don't think even Alex is suggesting Scotland won't have a share of the deficit! As for the debt, well he is currently claiming that is a possibility, whatever the reason. But then for an economist he does seem to get awfully confused about such things.

What facts am I getting wrong?

That's a question you should be asking yourself, not me.

Enough of the Scottish subsidy myth

I do like the hand waving to get rid of the last £624 - do they not have proper figures for that? But then we know the details aren't important.

Given that he is proposing a possible technical default as a so-called negotiating strategy perhaps he doesn't understand what a deficit is either.

Clue Alex, your pipe dreams will require considerable debt financing, so good idea to keep investors onside.

molgrips - Member
What facts am I getting wrong?
That's a question you should be asking yourself, not me.

aracer - Member

I don't think even Alex is suggesting Scotland won't have a share of the deficit!

you cling on to typos, good strategy that!

I douficit it was actually a typo

(whoops)

Debt being greater than assets (err, it's a balance sheet), deficit rather than debt......is that enough? 😉

Let you off if a typo on deficit 😉 still most people don't understand the difference between debt and deficit TBF

Are any of the 4 statements I made wrong?

I dunno. The bit about Scotland 'being able to manage' seems a bit vague though.

molgrips - Member
Are any of the 4 statements I made wrong?
I dunno. The bit about Scotland 'being able to manage' seems a bit vague though.

Of course Scotland can manage. If there is a Yes vote the UK will be a worse off and Scotland will be a lot worse off (and no that doesn't mean there will be a currency union which is a massive potential black hole for the UK 😐 )

A lose-lose!!!

We are a bunch of sado-masochists - or simply gullible.

what, the bit that most people agree on?

Still, coping really doesn't really aim too high in the aspiration stakes. Coping is what you do when trying to get to the end of the month having had to fix the car unexpectedly. It certainly isn't how the utopian iS is portrayed by the Yes campaign.

Scotland will be a lot worse off

Will it? Maybe. Maybe not. You can't say it with any degree of certainty though. And at the end of the day, I'd rather be poorer and live in a more democratic country that doesnt keep electing ****s who hate the poor than one than does.

oldbloke - Member
what, the bit that most people agree on?
Well, you presented it as a fact and it is an assumption at best.
Still, coping really doesn't really aim too high in the aspiration stakes. Coping is what you do when trying to get to the end of the month having had to fix the car unexpectedly. It certainly isn't how the utopian iS is portrayed by the Yes campaign.

And at the end of the day, I'd rather be poorer and live in a more democratic country that doesnt keep electing **** who hate the poor than one than does.

I'm sure when the poor are also poorer that they'll be glad they get the government they vote for.

youse still haven't provided any evidence bar trying to bamboozle with numbers

You want some evidence that you'll be worse off which doesn't involve numbers?

aracer - Member
And at the end of the day, I'd rather be poorer and live in a more democratic country that doesnt keep electing **** who hate the poor than one than does.
I'm sure when the poor are also poorer that they'll be glad they get the government they vote for.

coping is all the assurance I need

That's you. It isn't the rest of the country, thankfully. If you're bamboozled by numbers, then perhaps you need to take the time to work through them. The ability to understand numbers is fairly key to the ability to cope (or not).

So, you are prepared to put up with being a bit poorer for political freedom. What about the people who are already extremely poor and can't find the money to live each month? I wonder if they are prepared to jeopardize their part-time job for the same freedoms?

When a country gets poorer it's not just like everyone having a bit less money. Now I'm not saying that'll happen to Scotland, but it's a real possibility.

aracer - Member
You want some evidence that you'll be worse off which doesn't involve numbers?

Now I'm not an expert here in the slightest, but the whole a few quid better here, worse there, does nothing for me. I think the actual campaign from both sides has been pretty lacking, piss poor tbh. For me that's indicative of UK politics(and pretty much the only way the campaign was going to be fought).

When/If we vote yes I'm hoping, and yes it is a hope, that the discussion can start to move away from a cold financial look at things and start talking about improving society.

molgrips - Member
So, you are prepared to put up with being a bit poorer for political freedom. What about the people who are already extremely poor and can't find the money to live each month? I wonder if they are prepared to jeopardize their part-time job for the same freedoms?

When a country gets poorer it's not just like everyone having a bit less money. Now I'm not saying that'll happen to Scotland, but it's a real possibility.

btw, I'm not all that far away from the poor, if things go tits up, particular the property market, which my job is directly reliant on. I'll be hunting for a new job.

A risk i'm willing to take.

But who doesn't want to "improve society"? We differ on means not ends. But at the end of the day we are all economists ( 😉 ) in that we all have to work out how to allocate scarce resources to meet unlimited wants. The question is simple, can that be done better as part of a union or as part of a separate state? To date, apart from fluffy aspirational dreams, the yS has been remarkable for its inability to answer simple questions on this. Why? Because it's pretty obvious that they know the answer - stay as part of a wider group. Hence the fact that at every opportunity they grasp as much of the status quo as possible - and even worse when that is not available they grasp straws that will make it much harder to achieve the ends. Their central policy is to abdicate economic power to a foreign country and then a group of foreign countries.

When yS are essentially arguing against independence, the vote should be easy for everyone.

teamhurtmore - Member
But who doesn't want to "improve society"? We differ on means not ends. But at the end of the day we are all economists ( ) in that we all have to work out how to allocate scarce resources to meet unlimited wants. The question is simple, can that be done better as part of a union or as part of a separate state? To date, apart from fluffy aspirational dreams, the yS has been remarkable for its inability to answer simple questions on this. Why? Because it's pretty obvious that they know the answer - stay as part of a wider group. Hence the fact that at every opportunity they grasp as much of the status quo as possible - and even worse when that is not available they grasp straws that will make it much harder to achieve the ends. Their central policy is to abdicate economic power to a foreign country and then a group of foreign countries.

When yS are essentially arguing against independence, the vote should be easy for everyone.

But an IS is for longer than Salmond will be about(I'd predict a few years, no more.)

and start talking about improving society.

An iScotland, scrabbling around for foreign currency to meet over-ambitious political promises, might well be tempted to get into bed with whoever has most money, even more so than the UK already does.

[/cynicism]

oldnpastit - Member
and start talking about improving society.
An iScotland, scrabbling around for foreign currency to meet over-ambitious political promises, might well be tempted to get into bed with whoever has most money, even more so than the UK already does.

[/cynicism]

What I don't get as a non-economist is why, when there are lots of small countries doing fine by themselves, Scotland would be any different. Are our people less innovative and hard-working than others? Do we have shortages of natural resources? What do we lack that all these other countries have?

That fundamental question never seems to get an answer. My belief is that all we lack is confidence in ourselves.

But at the end of the day we are all economists

He's right. Wealth redistribution only works when there's wealth. Paying for great public services requires money to begin with. That's why you do need your economy to be strong even if you are not an avaricious Tory.

when there are lots of small countries doing fine by themselves, Scotland would be any different

Well, I'm not an economist either, but I can think of a few possible reasons:

1) Small countries very often rely on something to get business in - tax havens for example.

2) They are often fairly precarious economically as I understand it - a lot of shit hit a lot of fans in the EU a few years back didn't it? I suspect things were worse there than here.

3) The rich ones have natural resources like oil. Which Scotland has, but it's running out.

So I think if you are small economy you have to have something else on which to rely, other than just size.