Forum menu
Iget the numbers,they aren't difficult. Scotland will start with a deficit and debt. Beyond that you are just speculating and talking as much fantasy as anyone.
The numbers also show that without the oil money the deficit would be unsustainably huge. You can't just separate it out and suggest spending some of it on something else (an oil fund, diversification) as its part of the overall budget for Scotland to balancethe books. As I wrote a few hundred pages ago, there is nothing magic about the oil money - you might as well have a VAT fund or spend corporation tax on diversification. No speculation or fantasy there - it's only your refusal to look at this properly because you're waiting for some party to come up with magic policies which avoid the economic reality which makes you think that.
The specifics are irrelevant to me until campaigning begins
So what is the point of you participating in this thread discussing the specifics? Clearly the currency is an irrelevance, SNP policy is an irrelevance, even the BOD is an irrelevance. It's all about hope, hope that somebody can defy economic reality.
It's going to be fascinating to revisit this thread in 5 years time - or whenever Wales makes its bid for independence.
Wales won't, unless the option is some kind of commonwealth. We know we don't have the economy. Polls say 5-10% in favour.
I believe debt should only be used for productive purposes and not to fund consumption
Is consumption not a productive purpose then?
molgrips - Member
Wales won't, unless the option is some kind of commonwealth. We know we don't have the economy. Polls say 5-10% in favour.
Don't believe polls. All the polls I have seen for Scottish independence have always proven to be, shall we say "extremely conservative" after the fact.
And don't underestimate the value of what Wales has. Water is going to be like gold soon. There's plenty other things I can think of, but I'm sure you would know better examples.
molgrips - Member
"I believe debt should only be used for productive purposes and not to fund consumption"
Is consumption not a productive purpose then?
Not in my opinion. Borrowing should only be to acquire assets that will produce income. If you can't produce enough income of a debt to service it, it's going to bite you in the bum eventually (like Greece).
Which is possibly why the UK has had to go cap in hand more than once in my lifetime to the international financiers.
[url=
is the question bbc reported so wrongly[/url]
Clearly refers to a debate with undecided voters.
Epic, you are in for a shock pal. Consumption represents 60% of aggregate demand in the UK, by far and away the biggest driver. Take Scotland economy and you have major industries eg financial services (funding consumption via debt), drinks (consumption) tourism (ditto) etc....so are you proposing no debt to finance any of these drivers? Don't stand for politics if you are as you won't make many friends.
You must be very old if you can remember the UK going cap in hand more than once to international financiers - have you discovered immortality?
But funny that you should mention international financiers since wee eck needs to consider when he is going to stop pissing them off.
I read some of Ben's and Ninfan's posts about Scotland's revenue and expenditure and decided to do a bit of digging.
2012 - 2013
Expenditure = 9.3%
revenue = 9.1
2011 - 2012
Expenditure = 9.3%
revenue = 9.9%
2010 - 2011
Expenditure = 9.3%
revenue = 9.6%
2009 - 2010
Expenditure = 9.3%
revenue = 9.4 %
2008 - 2009
Expenditure = 9.4%
revenue = 10.3 %
2007 - 2008
Expenditure = 9.6%
revenue = 9.5 %
2006 - 2007
Expenditure = 9.6%
revenue = 9.6%
Average expenditure = 9.4%
Average revenue = 9.6%
So it would seem that over 7 years Scotland barely contributes to the UK at all. So after independence Scotland would be looking to get only 0.2% of UK assets. Let me guess iScotland will now be arguing for a per capita based amount of assets?
Brilliant commentary here. Balanced and articulate and thankfully free of the manic anger that clouds so much of the discussions around the referendum
http://mikeymacintosh.blogspot.co.uk/2014/08/referendummed-out.html?m=1
Thanks for posting bob, interesting read. Debunks most of the BS and surprise, surprise an articulate balanced argument comes to the obvious conclusion.
Average expenditure = 9.4%
Average revenue = 9.6%So it would seem that over 7 years Scotland barely contributes to the UK at all. So after independence Scotland would be looking to get only 0.2% of UK assets.
Er, I think your calculator is broken. You seem to think that, if Scotland only contributes 0.2% more than it receives, it should only get 0.2% of assets. But by that argument the rest of the UK contributes 0.2% less than it receives, so should get minus 0.2% of the assets.
In other words, nonsense 😉
AS trying to wriggle round the Goldman Sachs report today sums it up, especially trying to bully the reporter. No wonder that word trips so easily off his tongue! He knows all about bullying.
Guys try not mixing flow/income data with stock/balance sheet data. There's enough muddying the waters from yS to satisfy even the driest hippo already.
Scotland could be sitting on more than double the amount of oil and gas reserves currently predicted, a new independent industry investigation has found.
Another blow for the Yes vote there 😉
- An oil fund is exactly what's needed to balance out fluctuations like this. We'll only get an oil fund with independence.
Ben, that's not what an oil fund does! it's not for smoothing tax revenue over an economic cycle, it's for long term investment. that's *different*.
and you still haven't worked out what current expenditure you're going to cut in order to put money into the oil fund.
and you still haven't worked out whether the fund should be making money for the future or should be "investing in diversification" or other nice things.
"And you still haven't...."
Could be the yS motto really!
Yet the area – off the west coast of Scotland and Outer Hebrides and Shetland –has remained largely untapped due to deep waters and difficult geological conditions.
And with a wave of Alex's magic wand 😆
And we are back to two pages of "you can't afford it." We got a real insight into why zulu,jambalaya,TMA et all are worried about the vote. The resources that you need to support the South;you don't have them,we do. Of course,as has been suggested by either jambalaya or Zulu( why did he change his user name? You could just annexe the bits of Scotland you want.
It's not that we can't afford it, it's that we're not capable of doing it ourselves because ekkonomiks iz diffikult. Like a small child who's rich grandparent dies, we need someone responsible to look after our wealth for us, carefully handing it back to us when we can prove we're responsible.
I am paraphrasing slightly 😉
Anyway, don't worry, Ed Milliband is coming to save the union 😀
Oh, and in some more Lovebombing, Bob Geldof says that we're all better staying as one country, though he doesn't want Ireland to rejoin the UK, and he seems to think saying f*** a lot makes up for actually trying to understand the issues.
Ive just worked out that the guy in the audience the other night, shaking his head............was Ben! 😯
Ah, we're back to personal insults, good stuff 😉
There's a poll on the main page now....
You can take it as an anti-Scottish viewpoint of the English if you like Ben, but there are plenty of us inside the country who don't think the numbers and policies add up.It's not that we can't afford it, it's that we're not capable of doing it ourselves because ekkonomiks iz diffikult. Like a small child who's rich grandparent dies, we need someone responsible to look after our wealth for us, carefully handing it back to us when we can prove we're responsible
good read by monbiot?!?
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/02/scots-independence-england-scotland
also
[img] 
?oh=3f3e5df76e6ff40cdbada682c762beb3&oe=54772D43&__gda__=1417219579_347aa2677a0c7a54b1e043881c740995[/img]
Don't you see any contradiction?oldbloke - Member
You can take it as an anti-Scottish viewpoint of the English if you like Ben, but there are plenty of us inside the country who don't think the numbers and policies add up.
"Yes of course Scotland can go it alone" Then saying "the numbers don't match up"...
Pointing this out is apparently anti english? 😐
If I thought for a minute that the driving factor behind IS was anti Englishness, I wouldn't vote for it.
You can take it as an anti-Scottish viewpoint of the English if you like Ben, but there are plenty of us inside the country who don't think the numbers and policies add up.
This isn't about Scottish vs English. And we're not voting for a policy, we're voting for the ability to decide our own policies.
Ben's quote was clearly directed at those outside Scotland."Yes of course Scotland can go it alone" Then saying "the number don't match up" suggests that we can't!Pointing this out is apparently anti english?
Whether or not we can go it alone and whether the numbers add up or not are two different issues.
The ability to go it alone does not in any way define the quality of life we'd have. Hell, even Zimbabwe can go it alone.
But the numbers adding up or not is very much about whether or not the vision presented by the Scottish Government in the white paper is deliverable. It has had so many holes shot in it since the day of publication that it clearly isn't.
And before you say again "we're not always destined to have the SNP in charge" that's the manifesto of the guys doing the negotiating for the structure of independence. They will have more impact on the future of the country through that process than the generation of governments which follow.
Ben's quote was clearly directed at those outside Scotland.
My quote was about the Westminster elite of whatever nationality - England has it worse, you're not even trusted with your own parliament (though when asked you didn't want one).
Another blow for the Yes vote there
A report by a recruitment agency?
If you really want to think about the future of a Scottish economy, think beyond oil, maybe even forget about it, even salmond says its just a bonus and not a backbone of an economy.
England has it worse, you're not even trusted with your own parliament (though when asked you didn't want one).
Typical Anglo-centricism: Why would we want a national parliament, we've already got one!
And we're not voting for a policy, we're voting for the ability to decide our own policies.
This can be repeated but it is simply untrue. You have two options
(1) greater power to implement policies - NO (ironically)
(2) hand over all major policy instruments to a foreign county - YES (again ironically)
There is a third one of course - your aspiration - but yS does not want that. I accept that this is counter-intuitive but the truth often is especially when politicians are deliberately muddying the water.
duckman - Member
And we are back to two pages of "you can't afford it." We got a real insight into why zulu,jambalaya,TMA et all are worried about the vote.
Not at all ducks - just lifting the "veil of ignorance" (to mis-quote Rawls). To build up a SWF you need to be running a surplus ie revenues > expenditure. Scotland typical runs deficits of around 3% of GDP plus and the DO has plans to reduce taxes while increasing spending. Leaving aside the obvious flaw in that, to suggest that this is compatible with creating an oil fund is simple DECEIT. You need to create a surplus to transfer money into the fund. It really is very simple.
Of course in la la land you can have it all apparently!
And we're not voting for a policy,
The existence of a large document titled 'Scotlands future' points very much towards the fact that you [b]are[/b] voting for quite specific policies, or did you forget hearing Alex repeatedly say that a yes vote gave him a [i]mandate[/i]?
Otherwise the correct course of action would be to call a Scottish election immediately after a Yes vote!
Whenever I hear mandate am I the only person who thinks of this?
The pish being spouted about the West Coast untapped oil fields and 'reports' from a recruitment agency (oil and Gas people) are truly worrying if/when people believe that.
plans to reduce taxes while increasing spending
It's not a branch of economics that I buy into but it's not impossible to decrease taxes and increase revenue and therefore spending.
Has anyone sat and worked out how big the deficit/surplus would be if all or even some of the Whitepaper policies were implemented? How big the savings on defence spending etc would be?
The no camp are like a bunch of school teachers wagging their finger, you'll never amount to anything son! 😆
Good tactic, which generally illicts a f* you response. Carry on! 
bigjim - MemberA report by a recruitment agency?
A report [i]commissioned[/i] by a recruitment agency. But if you look at the sources it's far more convincing than that (they include the UK government 😉 )
good read by monbiot?!?
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/02/scots-independence-england-scotland
I was going to post that too. It's a very good way to put the argument I thought. Especially the point about the same arguments currently being used by the right to justify a euro exit being applicable to the Scottish decision.
I notice that the new scaremongering from the media is that the general election will have to be delayed. No doubt next week it will be power cuts and food shortages...
[url= http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/03/calls-to-postpone-uk-general-election-scots-independence ]http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/03/calls-to-postpone-uk-general-election-scots-independence[/url]
That Guardian article is interesting is several ways. We have the leader of the Scottish Tories saying that they are on course to lose the next general election, saying that because she thinks it might help the No side. And we have a veteran Tory MP giving a good insight into the No mindset when he says that a Yes vote would be "a national humiliation of catastrophic proportions".
The no camp are like a bunch of school teachers wagging their finger, you'll never amount to anything son!
Good tactic, which generally illicts a f* you response. Carry on!
between that and the approaching economic DOOM, at least we can expect some brilliant punk records.
The old school across from my shop is being demolished, and today this appeared:
[url= https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5553/15134219531_b9263415d5_b.jp g" target="_blank">https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5553/15134219531_b9263415d5_b.jp g"/> [/img][/url][url= https://flic.kr/p/p4mQcv ]Springbank School - Hope not Fear[/url] by [url= https://www.flickr.com/people/10954782@N00/ ]Ben Cooper[/url], on Flickr
😀
That's a beautiful building to demolish..
mm, does seem a waste.molgrips - Member
That's a beautiful building to demolish..
Ben
Aren't you know for wandering around old empty abandoned buildings........? 😆