BruceWee.
To answer your earlier points 13.5Bn deficit is the real figure If you disagree why don't you FOI the SG stats people about it (tho thats not necessary as they publish the data freely). If the deficit improves then great! and I'll use the new number. (but why does the current one make you uncomfortable?)
Just saying "it isn't" doesn't work and makes Nicola or her staff (and the recent changes to GERS calculation her administration made) out to be incompetent.
Brexit squared is based on the following (I think I've said this already, but hey):
If leaving a union with you closest neighbours and business partners and introducing barriers to trade, while handing over (losing) large amounts of cash you don't have to is crazy in the case of brexit, then doing the same on a smaller scale geographically but larger scale economically (%wise) is also crazy. Doing them both (leaving the UK single market on top of the EU single market, and having neither) is brexit squared QED.
You might not agree, but that is what I mean (and if you think you'll continue to be in the EU or get accepted in immediately on independence then see the SNP growth report).
I never said or considered the words true believer to be an insult. I didn't capitalise it and I kind of wonder why it seems to have touched a nerve for y'all?
As for what would make me support indy? Maybe for starters, not being called:
demeaning, superior, sneering, closed minded, patronising, unread, unsceptical, unlistening, a sock puppet and a troll.
For having a grasp of economic reality and writing down my opinion.
I'm honestly not feeling courted here.
I kind of wonder why it seems to have touched a nerve for y’all?
It's any excuse to feel put out. I reckon they want to be oppressed, gives 'em something to moan about other than the bitter aftertaste left from suckling on Westminster's teat. They actually do believe that they are too wee, too poor and too stupid to run their own country which is why they (are the only ones that) keep mentioning it. The drive for independence is just one big bluff.
It was a real figure last year (although meaningless, as you said earlier). It will not be the same now given that receipts when the oil price was $100 were £8BN vs the $0.2BN they were last year with the oil price at $50. Does it make me uncomfortable? No, because it's a meaningless number (as you said) and even if it wasn't meaningless it is no longer £13BN.
What deficit would make you support independence?
As I said, joining the EEA will allow us to trade with rUK and, to a certain extent, with the EU. As opposed to sticking with the rUK which would drastically reduce trade with the EU and still affect trade with rUK given that we will be completely ****ed economically.
You didn't capitalise true believer but you did put the copyright sign after it (your forum skills are superior to mine, I'll give you that. If I knew how to do that I wouldn't have had to capitalise it.)
I never said demeaning, superior, sneering, closed minded, patronising, unread, unsceptical, unlistening, a sock puppet and a troll. I did imply that you wouldn't even consider the possibility that independence might work and if that was the case then there wasn't much point in continuing discussing it with you.
I also don't feel like I'm being courted, if it makes any difference.
Can you please tell us what set of circumstances would make you support independence? Or is there none and you are a true believer (with copyright sign).
sbob,
You may think you are on my side (or that I'm on yours).
But based on what you've just written, I'm really really not.
Please don't take anything I write seriously. It was just a piss take inspired by repetitive use of the victim card.
🙂
eat_the_pudding, I get why you would feel that everyone is attacking you. Looking at what I said it probably seems like I'm attacking you as well so sorry about that.
I just feel like I can't find common ground with you if I don't know what would make you support independence. If you can tell me then we can discuss whether what would make you change your mind is possible or not.
What would make me change my mind has to start with ditching Brexit. From there it has to be wholesale restructuring of the way the country is run. With the current first past the post system the minority of voters decide the direction of the country, no matter which party is in power. Coalitions should be the norm.
The HoL would have to go, even if they do seem to be doing their job at the moment.
The biggest obstacle would have to be overcoming my belief that a country of 5 - 10 million will always be better governed than a country of 60 million. There are simply too many differences in culture over such a large population, especially when one part of the country has drastically different views to the rest.
What would make me think remaining in the union was a good idea?
Proper representative democracy not FPTP
An end to the HOL
A proper federal solution for UK wide issues
so thats a parliament for each constituent nation with the same powers and a federal "senate" that is representatives from each national parliament for UK wide issues
Don't think I said meaningless. I'm open to correction, but if forced I'd summarise my attitude to "best available" "gold standard" or "SG official statistic" or "Nicola's magic number". Estimate =/= meaningless
Your next paragraph is just hand waving. See Brexit for an education in hand waving vs reality.
I added a copyright symbol AFTER I was accused of using the phrase as an insult.
Hold down Alt and type 0169. (or Alt+0176 for a degree symbol .. now you can describe temperature, and direction!)
I didn't say that you called me anything, (though you might have .. I'm not keeping score, just had a quick look to see what the grievance police were doing on their own time).
Personally I don't think independence is a good idea for the same reasons that brexit is not a good idea (as described above).
Also all nationalisms tend towards small minded, petty, divisiveness, and will ultimately do or say anything to get their own way. Scottish Nationalism is no different.
If you think I'm wrong then why is Nicola tearing her clothes about the terrible slurs to devolution and Holyrood when the SNP campaigned <i>against</i> it ever being set up?
I'm not trying to say that independence can't work or that scotland can't handle independence. Just pointing out the cost. Traditionally you should now call me "project fear". But before doing that consider brexit again where boris and chums used that phrase to good effect and where are we now?
I'm not here to change your mind, just try to stop you passing off opinion as fact in a race to the austerity bus. If you want independence, then fine, but don't try to say you care about the poor people in Scotland and then plan to chop off 13 (ish) Bn of the money that supports them, every year until the unicorn farts a rainbow.
just try to stop you passing off opinion as fact
What makes your opinion fact? Don’t say the 13.5 billion figure you tout because we’ve already established that’s the current deficit under the union and no one, not even you, knows what that would be under an independent Scotland
youre either a THM alias or his long lost brother
I'm not actually feeling attacked. Just pointing out that If i screwed up my eyes and looked really close I might be able to justify it more than those here who keep accusing me of insulting them.
I also don't really see why I should feel anything about scottish independence (apart from wanting a reality based debate). Its the status quo. Its up to you to argue for change.
Before you say that thats a bad thing please note that it does give you a big advantage.
"More of the same!" was a burden for the no side in 2014 and also for the pro EU side in the brexit referendum.
Change always has the advantage, because the destination is not yet reality and can be all things to all men (as exploited by Cambridge Analytica and their facebook based individual marketing).
So someone has to keep you grounded in reality.
If no-one does that job, you'll wake up and find yourself with brexit™ (0153) all over the carpet and people telling you its what you voted for.
not knowing for sure =/= no idea
Its the starting position, Its the cutting of 13Bn from a 50 ish Bn budget on day 1 of independence.
Yes things will be different in the future (thats what its for), but the best people the SNP could find to write up a prospectus for indy have accepted those numbers and with the best will in the world (and probably a lot of people looking over their shoulder), couldn't wish their way out of the defecit for at least 10 years (and that required growth figures some would call unreasonably positive so lets say 25 instead).
Stop banging your head off the facts we actually know (estimated or not).
Its beginning to look like you can't decide if economics matters or not. It almost looks like positive things matter and negative ones should be ignored or obfuscated.
If all that you guys say about the scottish economy is true then it would be in the growth report, on the front of the nat onal, and on posters on every street in scotland.
Its not. QED
You're right, you didn't say meaningless.
The UK has a deficit, but %wise its better than the Scottish one. The deficit isn’t real though. Its theoretical because we benefit from pooling and sharing and without 13 Bn to replace that and no economic argument Scottish independence is toast.
You said it isn't real, it's theoretical. It is theoretical because it's impossible to properly calculate while we are part of the UK. It reports much of the income generated in Scotland as being generated in England given where businesses are based. That's only one factor that makes estimates difficult.
Also, can you stop saying that it would lead to 13BN disappearing overnight. Almost all countries run a deficit. Much of that money will still be available and if the increase in oil price has returned the deficit to it's historic average then Scotland will be better off than rUK.
However, as you and I both said, this is all conjecture. The deficit for Scotland isn't real, it's theoretical. If you want to believe the reality is worse than the theory that's your right. Just don't try to pass off your opinion as fact.
An end to the HOL
Be careful what you wish for. I am not sure it would be replaced with anything better.
Parliament needs a second opinion imo. Checks and balances.
By the way, I don't think the SNP were trying to make the report seem as rosy as possible. I think they were aiming for the worst case scenario.
During the referendum the No side was able to spend a lot of time attacking the numbers, saying they were far too optimistic. I've noticed that this time around no one on the No side is attacking the numbers, just saying how bad they are.
People feel like they are making their decision based on reality without the No side constantly saying the argument is based on false data.
These numbers are not the best the SNP could come up with if they really wanted to, I'm sure.
Yes, in a country that has an electoral system that is fundamentally flawed checks and balances are very important. Much more so than in a properly representative government.
Apparently it is cultish to want your country to be run by the people living in it, and not by those next door.
& you can't see any similarities at all with the Brexit mindset?
Strangely enough it was ruled by Westminster.
It got its independence in the 1960s, it’s still not a rich country, but none of the people there want Westminster rule again.
BTW Scotland is not a poor country. That is the big Unionist lie.
That's my point. Scotland is not poor NOW - but some people seem to be suggesting being poor would be preferable to being ruled by English scum.
Yes, in a country that has an electoral system that is fundamentally flawed checks and balances are very important. Much more so than in a properly representative government.
So it's better to have a government that is directly representative of the will of the people? You mean like in Brexit? Or the Indy ref?
I notice no-one has been able to tell me why the line on the map is so important.
Nope .. its "theoretical" because we currently don't have to pay it off. It gets given to us by the rest of the UK doing better economically.
It becomes real if we get independence. And then it happens every year until the economy grows out of it. Thats where the projections come in, where we become denmark (but not greece) over time, for reasons.
Most countries do run a deficit, but not of that scale (this is where I mention greece again and people get all offended and then check the numbers and go quiet)
I agree that the growth report is more reality based than the book of dreams (with very positive spin).
I disagree that reality makes independence more likely.
Remember the statistic right at the start of the indy debate that people would vote for independence if it made them £400 better off?
Why do you think that the SNP invested so much time and effort on the economic chicanery in 2014.
Why do you think they coined the phrase "too poor, too wee too stupid" so that people could parrot it at anyone who expressed a negative opinion about the economy? (Still happening .. even today! if you can believe it)
The economy matters. No-one votes to make themselves poorer (unless they're lied to, see brexit again, look at the bus!).
Indy is dead for a generation (hopefully a real one this time).
Some useful GERS analysis
I notice no-one has been able to tell me why the line on the map is so important.
It's a safety net.
It physically prevents oppression from falling to the South.
No, it's theoretical because it's impossible to properly measure while Scotland is in the Union.
Historically it has not been this high. On average Scotland's deficit has been lower. Therefore, if you take the average rather than a single year (I hope you'll agree the average is more relevant than a single year) it will be easier to pay down. I would suggest you check the numbers and we'll see if you go quiet.
We may become Greece because reasons as well. At least we'll be able to decide which way to go.
It's fair enough to say the SNP performed chicanery in 2014. This allowed No to spend so much time making the argument about whether the numbers were accurate or not. If you've noticed, there hasn't been much arguing about whether the numbers are accurate or not this time around. The argument has been centered on whether Scotland should be independent rather than the numbers. The SNP have taken away a stick that No can beat us with.
That's why you're forced to go back to the 2014 campaign to make your argument.
No, its theoretical because its not money we have to cut from social care etc. at the moment.
Its an estimate because, honestly, even outside the union it would also be an estimate because thats how economic statistics work.
On that note you haven't read that link I put up have you? It has a lot to say about economics statistics and "estimates" etc. You should genuinely find it interesting if you read it.
I "went back to 2014" because you (rightly) said that the current report is different from what was said back then (which was very economical with the truth, but still being defended online in 2018!?).
Also to point out the importance of the economy to the discussion of independence. It continue to be an important part of any future discussion.
Just because the SNP have accepted the truth in the report doesn't mean that they won't obfuscate it (frankly they've lied about the contents already).
Honestly the reason many no voters like the growth report is because, though positively spun, it should hopefully prevent people talking rubbish about the only economic facts we have.
I see its not working yet.
Please read the link (I read the Richard Murphy one, again). .. hes the man who gave us corbynomics :O)
re: the average is lower
Yup. Also my average height since I was 12 is a lower number than my height now?
Your point?
Some useful Richard Murphy analysis
So again, just someone else's opinion, not fact.
We can play link tennis all day but I have some mars bars to deep fry so I'm busy elsewhere
I’ve still not tried deep fried mars bars, I just can’t bring myself to do it!
Ive had Iran Bru tablet recently, which come the revolution hopefully will be enough to get me a green.... I mean Tartan card and avoid deportation.
Actually have I? I may have blocked out the memory!
You are a biological organism (assuming you're not a Russian bot) so you start small, you get bigger, then you die.
A country doesn't change in a linear fashion in a single direction. It gets bigger, it gets smaller, it gets bigger again so the average is much more important than the instantaneous number.
Surely that's obvious?
Ive had Iran Bru tablet recently, which come the revolution hopefully will be enough to get me a green…. I mean Tartan card and avoid deportation.
Iran Bru?
Is that like Turkish Delight?
Immigration request denied.
BruceWee
I'm being obstreperous.
I understand that the average looks better for you so you want us to look at the average.
I also understand that the oil isn't coming back so some of the conditions you want to return to (that helped create a smaller average) are not available.
We could grow the economy though? Why not concentrate on that for a couple of years, and make the deficit go away altogether. Imagine what that would do for the indy debate! (before you mention "brexit" it doesn't seem to have slowed the rUK down as much as Scotland. Why? I wonder?)
BoardinBob
Yup, just someone elses opinion on Richard Murphy.
It does include the opinions of 3 professional economists on GERS, and their opinions of Richard Murphys analysis, and their defence of the civil service statisticians and a few other bits and pieces.
But they're just experts and we know what we thinks of them around here!
Nothing to see here. Move along.
See the debates getting more highbrow already, and no-one is denying GERS anymore.
Have a good weekend everyone 🙂
PS. I can't be a Russian bot because I'm against Scottish Independence :O)
... zooms off that way -> .......
And I understand the last one looks better for you so that's why you want to use it. Even if it makes no sense when talking about the economy moving forward.
The oil isn't coming back? Ask the Norwegians about Johan Sverdrup. Oil and gas is always finished until it isn't, it's a lesson that hasn't been learned in decades. Who knows though, maybe this time it's actually true.
I suspect Russia is against Scottish independence at the moment. Unless Brexit falls through, of course.
But they’re just experts and we know what we thinks of them around here!
And Richard Murphy is what? A binman or something judging by your sneering?
http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/richard-murphy/
Your credentials must be spectacular
من کشف شدم
Eat the Pudding just to correct another error in your post . The SNP campaigned for the Scottish Parliament not against it . I was a member at the time. However don't go by what I say . Here's what wiki says
The official Yes campaign, <i>Scotland Forward</i> (styled "Scotland FORward"), was headed by the businessman Nigel Smith and came out of the groups that had previously formed the Scottish Constitutional Convention, along with the Scottish National Party. It was supported by the Labour, SNP, Liberal Democrat and Green parties.<sup id="cite_ref-BBC_Brief_4-0" class="reference">[4</sup>
This is my last post on this thread because it has become repetitive like the EU thread (you'll be glad to hear). 🙂
Since the walkout, the SNP has gained so many new members that it is now reportedly the second largest party in the UK. It now out numbers the Tory party.
Considering the pro rata population bases they have to draw from, that is astounding.
It also appears to have the largest pro rata membership of a political party anywhere in the "free" world.
If that isn't the death knell of the Union, I don't know what is.
gordimhor
Things change, but SNP Campaigned against devolution in 1997.
They also used to have a different attitude to tory coalitions https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/labour-frozen-out-as-snp-buries-hatchet-with-conservatives-to-end-20-year-taboo-1-1427779
But they do love to bury the past unless its a grievance.
BoardinBob
And these are the bios of the people who think hes talking mince in the link I gave;
https://www.gla.ac.uk/schools/business/staff/ronaldmacdonald/
https://www.niesr.ac.uk/users/angus-armstrong
And these are some others who agree that GERS is good data:
Nicola Sturgeon
Alex Salmond
Scottish Government http://www.gov.scot/Topics/Statistics/Browse/Economy/GERS
So stop playing tig with the truth, or at least ask yourself why its so important to you to prove that GERS is crap when even the SNP have given up trying.
re: "sneering" Do you always have to assume bad faith/anger/resentment in anyone who disagrees with you?
Or is it that projection thing again.
re: "your credentials must be spectacular" - sounding a bit sneery there. Better have a nap.
epicyclo
Many detailed "new member" numbers flying about.
No official total number from the SNP though, only estimates! Wonder why?
And Sturgeon still can't remember the set up costs from her own report.
Numbers are funny aren't they 🙂
If eat_the_pudding isn't thm, I'll eat my hat.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/special/politics97/devolution/scotbrief.shtml
It seems the BBC agree with me ETP.
hings change, but SNP Campaigned against devolution in 1997.
No they didn't. They campaigned for a Yes/Yes vote.
Holyrood when the SNP campaigned <i>against</i> it ever being set up?
That's what you said first now you change to this.
Things change, but SNP Campaigned against devolution in 1997.
You're attempting to obscure the real argument. I wonder why.
Its what I recalled from the time (that the SNP was against devolution, seeing it as a poor mans independence and then changed their mind later) maybe I'm wrong?
In fact looking at your link (and obviously a bit of desperate googling of my own) it looks like I'm wrong about that, could be a complete brainfart or maybe it was an earlier time?
So sorry about that and thanks for the correction. I should'a googled before I wrote 🙂
But Gordimhor
Why is the thing you've found that I'm wrong about "an attempt to obscure the real argument"?
What is the this "real argument" you speak of?
Does that mean everything else I've said and can back up (about GERS, Scotlands finances etc etc.), is unimportant and irrelevant.
Or that its well documented and accepted?
km79
Thanks for your input i guess?
ETP you've made 2 claims which are false.
You've made one further claim based on a flawed measurement of the current situation and applied that to a possible future.
How would you respond to that?
In the meantime for the real argument you could start with the original post
I might be wrong, but as I recall at the time of the first Holyrood elections in 99, all parties were very upbeat with regards to the parliament except the Tories. People, the SNP and Labour were very positive, however Salmond and Dewar had very different view on the ultimate end game.
