The Dirty Independence Question

[eFestivals]

Good analysis of the mess Labour in Scotland is in

Perhaps, but some poor analysis of other aspects.

[eFestivals]

Accuracy of these figures aside, it`s a fair point and something that does require to be addressed( I mean by the Scottish Govt ).

And it would have been addressed, via massive cuts in public spending as the only option.

Salmond was scamming you - cos it would have been Salmond that would have had to make those cuts, you'd have had no chance to remove him before he did so.

And yes-ers would have voted for the exact opposite of what they believed they were voting for.

And people like you wonder why I couldn't go along with the mass conning and mass delusion that was the yes campaign.

We had all the links on here before about Scotlands other natural resources ( vast ) and I`m hoping that alot of Patrick Harvies ideas during the campaign will be worked on going forward.

That's all very well for the future (if they're viable; the fact they've not happened yet shows they're not, yet). But it wouldn't have addressed the mass fuck-up that would have been iDay.

The decline in revenue right now is not really good news for debt ridden UK.

No decline is revenue is a good thing when the deficits are so large.

But north sea oil & gas s such a tiny part of UK revenues it's almost a nothing that can be ignored.

It's very different for Scotland, where it's such a hugely significant chunk of income that it would be disastrous.

And don't forget, Salmond was promising you that this non-existent money was going to be spent four times over:- to reduce the deficit (the 3rd biggest in Europe for the past few years; worse than Greece now, with the drop in oil revenues), to pay down debt, to increase public spending, and to create an 'oil fund'. Anyone who went along with that bollocks needs a basic economics lesson.

[eFestivals]

Neil, good post and some interesting points. There is a lot to learn from defeat. Whens the cut off though for the guff contained in the last 2 paragraphs ? Think that`s 7 weeks now since your victory

When yes-ers stop bitching and start acting?

Nothing is stopping you but yourselves.

[eFestivals]

Edited November 7, 2014 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

Just announced, an " under budget " story. While others burn his effigy he just keeps on delivering

I bet he hasn't included the costs picked up by the UK. You know, like the immigration/asylum costs that whole UK covered.

Isn't it funny how he excludes what he wants from GERS, but doesn't include everything he should within GERS? Anyone might think he's trying to con some folks.

PS: check out any county council. Most are very efficient at spending their govt grants. The shit hits the fan only when the same body has responsibility for money collection too.

Edited November 7, 2014 by eFestivals

[LJS]

I bet he hasn't included the costs picked up by the UK. You know, like the immigration/asylum costs that whole UK covered.

Isn't it funny how he excludes what he wants from GERS, but doesn't include everything he should within GERS? Anyone might think he's trying to con some folks.

PS: check out any county council. Most are very efficient at spending their govt grants. The shit hits the fan only when the same body has responsibility for money collection too.

Immigration/asylum costs? Did the Canadian team claim political asylum? Did I miss that?

[LJS]

From Scotland's only official accounts (GERS), Scotland pays zero.

Via a quick google i've failed to find the words that categorically states that Crossrail and the London Sewerage stuff is excluded (tho I have read that page previously), but if you search for 'Olympics' in the link below you'd see (in the 2nd use of the word in that document) that everything of that is excluded from GERS.

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0041/00415868.pdf

To quote the words from that document...

That clearly shows the principle GERS is working to: that if Salmond says a UK expense has nothing to do with Scotland (for which he might be right or wrong, but for this is doesn't matter), then it is excluded from the Scottish accounts.

That means at best, GERS is accurate for an iScotland (and its numbers should still worry you). Or at worst, GERS is making an iScotland seem more viable than it really is, because the position is worse than GERS says.

PS: where the whole-UK is picking up a purely Scottish expense (such as Glasgow's motorways currently), Salmond doesn't assign all of that expense to Scotland. He's working GERS to make Scotland look better than it is.

Glasgow motorways? As transport is devolved they come out of Scottish government budget surely?. Unless you are referring to when the bulk of them were built in the 60's & 70's.

[eFestivals]

Immigration/asylum costs? Did the Canadian team claim political asylum? Did I miss that?

I know that some of the overseas athletes did 'disappear' &/or claim asylum, tho I can't remember the full details now.

[eFestivals]

Glasgow motorways? As transport is devolved they come out of Scottish government budget surely?. Unless you are referring to when the bulk of them were built in the 60's & 70's.

I'm 99% sure that motorways are classed as UK infrastructure spending.

Scotland might have management of them, but I'm pretty sure the money for major works on them comes from the UK infrastructure fund (in the same way that the London railways Scots often moan about are).

I defo read something along those lines during the indyref.

Edited November 7, 2014 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

PS ... but nice swerving of the actual point of that post - that Scotland is not paying for that London stuff in all official Scottish finances.

[Comfy Bean]

Rumours this morning that Salmond could take a run at Danny Alexanders seat in the General Election

As I`ve said here before, I have no time for Alexander and would be delighted to see Salmond take him on. I have noticed that very few on here have any time for Salmond but a straight choice between him and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury in the current Torie Coalition Govt ?

If it comes to pass, which one would you rather see in Westminster next year. The Tories would surely do everything possible to back Alexander. Could Salmond unite the efesters in this one ?

[LJS]

Wow, what an amazing idea! if only some had thought of it years ago

Shale gas: George Osborne proposes north of England fund

Shale gas extraction revenues could be held in a "sovereign wealth fund" for the north of England, the chancellor has said.

George Osborne told BBC Radio 4's Today programme the fund would be a way of "making sure money is not squandered on day-to-day spending".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-29968603

Edited November 8, 2014 by LJS

[DomDom1984]

You know, efests has given a better account of themselves than most No guys have, and am I right assuming you never had a vote? Which is even more impressive.

I voted Yes and still feel that was the right move, and I can't say I like efest's condescending tone, but I've been on many forums and not seen one person as informed as him. I don't agree with a lot of what he says but fucking kudos to the boy.

[LJS]

PS ... but nice swerving of the actual point of that post - that Scotland is not paying for that London stuff in all official Scottish finances.

I didn't swerve it - I presumed you would have realised you were talking rubbish & spare you the embarrassment. GERS provides an estimate of income & expenditure in Scotland - for expenditure it estimates the money that is spent in Scotland or for Scotland so it would inevitably exclude expenditure in London.

That does not mean that current investment in London's infrastructure is not being paid for from general taxation. Of course there are a myriad ways in which capital expenditure is "structured" to avoid it looking like we are actually spending it :PFI, PPP etc etc but the bottom line is we are all paying for London's regeneration which is never taken into account when we hear how much London is "subsidising" us.

[LJS]

I'm 99% sure that motorways are classed as UK infrastructure spending.

Scotland might have management of them, but I'm pretty sure the money for major works on them comes from the UK infrastructure fund (in the same way that the London railways Scots often moan about are).

I defo read something along those lines during the indyref.

I can't find anything to back that up - Indeed the New Forth Road Bridge is running under budget & the savings are being used by the Scottish Government to bring forward planned work on the A9 which would appear to support the view that these projects come out of SG budgets.

[LJS]

I know that some of the overseas athletes did 'disappear' &/or claim asylum, tho I can't remember the full details now.

not entirely sure what that has to do with the games coming in under or over budget.

Does Glastonbury contribute to the cost of processing fans & artistes through customs?

Does the Edinburgh Festival etc etc

[eFestivals]

You know, efests has given a better account of themselves than most No guys have, and am I right assuming you never had a vote? Which is even more impressive.

I voted Yes and still feel that was the right move, and I can't say I like efest's condescending tone, but I've been on many forums and not seen one person as informed as him. I don't agree with a lot of what he says but fucking kudos to the boy.

Thanks - tho it's pisstaking banter and not condescending from where I'm sat. That difference doesn't necessarily come over well in words. There's a lot to take the piss about (and note, something I also did to 'no' too).

As for being informed with facts, (as I've mentioned before) mostly what I've picked up came from a Slovenian national who posted a lot on the Guardian, whose referenced facts I never once saw knocked down - tho plenty of yes-ers went for that messenger, as they couldn't deal with the message.

I'm happy for Scots to be independent if that's what they want - but if the yes campaign needs lies, obfuscation and a refusal to reveal plan B to get people on side then it's clear that's not what they want if everything were made properly clear and transparent to them.

[eFestivals]

I didn't swerve it - I presumed you would have realised you were talking rubbish & spare you the embarrassment. GERS provides an estimate of income & expenditure in Scotland - for expenditure it estimates the money that is spent in Scotland or for Scotland so it would inevitably exclude expenditure in London.

That does not mean that current investment in London's infrastructure is not being paid for from general taxation. Of course there are a myriad ways in which capital expenditure is "structured" to avoid it looking like we are actually spending it :PFI, PPP etc etc but the bottom line is we are all paying for London's regeneration which is never taken into account when we hear how much London is "subsidising" us.

As I've said to you before, yes, these things are being paid for from general taxation.

But if you wish to accept that fact, you also have to accept that Scotland's financial position is worse than GERS claims, because Scotland does get a benefit from these things, and an iScotland would need to help fund things like these for it's own benefit or spend equivalent amounts on facilities of its own for similar benefits.

And if you're now willing to address the facts, there's plenty of other facts that can be addressed too - like how Salmond was saying in the white paper "those nice English folks will be happy to give us independent Scots X, Y, & Z for free so there's no need to have a Scottish expense", which also helped make everything look rosy in Salmond's garden.

So if you're up for a discussion of the facts around Scottish indy for the first time LJS, bring it on.

[eFestivals]

I can't find anything to back that up - Indeed the New Forth Road Bridge is running under budget & the savings are being used by the Scottish Government to bring forward planned work on the A9 which would appear to support the view that these projects come out of SG budgets.

Well, I can't find anything now to back up what I was claiming, so in the absence of that backup I'm happy to accept I was mistaken with what I said about motorways.

It's certainly true that the UK is paying for Scotland's green energy investment tho, with Salmond claiming in the white paper that rUK would continue to give iScotland all of the same money post-indy... which is laughable.

not entirely sure what that has to do with the games coming in under or over budget.

Does Glastonbury contribute to the cost of processing fans & artistes through customs?

Does the Edinburgh Festival etc etc

They're hardly the same things tho, are they?

There's no claim of full self-sustainability being made for Glastonbury and Edinburgh festivals, as there is around mention of the Glasgow games coming in under budget.

But if you want to concentrate on just the 'under budget' thing, we could always play a game of Scottish budgetting ping-pong, where Scottish exceptionalism gets disproven by facts?

Edited November 10, 2014 by eFestivals

[LJS]

As I've said to you before, yes, these things are being paid for from general taxation.

But if you wish to accept that fact, you also have to accept that Scotland's financial position is worse than GERS claims, because Scotland does get a benefit from these things, and an iScotland would need to help fund things like these for it's own benefit or spend equivalent amounts on facilities of its own for similar benefits.

And if you're now willing to address the facts, there's plenty of other facts that can be addressed too - like how Salmond was saying in the white paper "those nice English folks will be happy to give us independent Scots X, Y, & Z for free so there's no need to have a Scottish expense", which also helped make everything look rosy in Salmond's garden.

So if you're up for a discussion of the facts around Scottish indy for the first time LJS, bring it on.

I'm a little disappointed that you feel we haven't been having that discussion for the past few months.

I realise it is part of your debating strategy to imply that those who disagree with you are ignoring facts. Of course, facts are a little hard to pin down when discussing the future.

[LJS]

Well, I can't find anything now to back up what I was claiming, so in the absence of that backup I'm happy to accept I was mistaken with what I said about motorways.

It's certainly true that the UK is paying for Scotland's green energy investment tho, with Salmond claiming in the white paper that rUK would continue to give iScotland all of the same money post-indy... which is laughable.

They're hardly the same things tho, are they?

There's no claim of full self-sustainability being made for Glastonbury and Edinburgh festivals, as there is around mention of the Glasgow games coming in under budget.

But if you want to concentrate on just the 'under budget' thing, we could always play a game of Scottish budgetting ping-pong, where Scottish exceptionalism gets disproven by facts?

I didn't raise the under budgetness of the Commy Games, mainly because it's not particularly remarkable. Some big public projects come in under budget ( commy games. New forth bridge) some come in over budget ( Edinburgh trams, Scottish parliament) that's just the way of the world. To suggest that someone claiming asylum somehow takes away from the CG being under budget is a wee bit desperate, in my view.

[eFestivals]

I'm a little disappointed that you feel we haven't been having that discussion for the past few months.

I realise it is part of your debating strategy to imply that those who disagree with you are ignoring facts. Of course, facts are a little hard to pin down when discussing the future.

Outcomes are difficult to pin down. The facts remain facts.

It was suggested that Scottish banks would head south due to the facts of what banks are, but that wasn't a fact in Scotland, it was instead a fact of biased reporting. Was it fact that they categorically stated they'd head south, or was that bias too?

[eFestivals]

I didn't raise the under budgetness of the Commy Games, mainly because it's not particularly remarkable. Some big public projects come in under budget ( commy games. New forth bridge) some come in over budget ( Edinburgh trams, Scottish parliament) that's just the way of the world. To suggest that someone claiming asylum somehow takes away from the CG being under budget is a wee bit desperate, in my view.

Mentioning just-one instance of good budgeting as tho that somehow validates indy is also a wee bit desperate. If there was desperation in the reply, it indy desperation that got us there.

In an indy debate, if something is held up as a means of justification, it needs to be properly and fully justified.

But anyway. My kid properly managed his pocket money budget last week, so I reckon it's time for him to strike out on his own.

[Comfy Bean]

I think it was me who posted the link to the under budget saving on our Games. It was meant to be a little tongue in cheek ( hence I posted one of these after it ) and it was posted at the time in context with the discussions we were having around the funding / budget for the Olympics and HS2, both massively over budget as we know.

We were also talking about ( denying ) Scottish taxpayers contribution to the new London toilets and train set as opposed to the suggestion that London was propping us up. Here`s a bit more info that would lead us away from the " not a penny " talk from before. It looks like we contribute to the cost and then loose out on funds for our projects due to some smoke and mirrors from Westminster around how these projects benefit us all

http://www.newsnetscotland.scot/index.php/scottish-economy/4757-cameron-must-explain-why-scots-have-to-pay-for-londons-sewer-upgrade

Edited November 10, 2014 by comfortablynumb1910

[eFestivals]

It looks like we contribute to the cost and then loose out on funds for our projects due to some smoke and mirrors from Westminster around how these projects benefit us all

Whether you "loose out" or not depends what criteria you're using for the losing.

London earns more than gets spent on London. No other part of the UK can say the same, or gets close to the same.

A reminder: Scotland spends over 10% more than it contributes (with the geographic share of oil included, and those London projects excluded).

So, does Scotland really lose out? Or is it being generously supported?