The Dirty Independence Question

[LJS]

You started out saying you'd be voting yes to benefit the poor.

You finished admitting that they'd be a downturn as a result of going indie.

OK, I'm not working from your words about the poor not benefiting, but if you'd like to explain how they might have done in that downturn I'm all ears....?

Firstly, I did not "admit" there would be a downturn. I "admitted" we might be bit worse off for a wee while but I never accepted that was inevitable.

Secondly, even if there was a "downturn" I would only need to go to the general news thread for confirmation (from you) that you can cut spending without disadvantaging the poor.

[eFestivals]

Secondly, even if there was a "downturn" I would only need to go to the general news thread for confirmation (from you) that you can cut spending without disadvantaging the poor.

but - also from me, in the same words - you can't make those cuts without affecting business, and causing a downturn as a result. I'm amused that you've chosen to ignore that part of the whole.

When a 3% corp tax cut was the plan - a plan that no one in Scotland would have had a say on after voting yes - then it was clear that disadvantaging business wasn't on the agenda. Enabling business to run off with even more of the money was.

I see St Nicola said yesterday (or Friday?) that austerity shouldn't happen. I see that paying your own way - Scottish money for the Scottish economy - is not part of the SNP's plan when within the UK. How very independently minded of her.

And, you need to note, that means huge cuts in public spending if/when Scotland becomes indie. The very scenario I was pointing out 2 months ago is ingrained within the SNP; indie equals cuts, just as much as the UK equals wonga galore via Barnet.

And as i've said consistently, that's fine if Scotland wants that. It's not fine to go for indie on the promise of the impossible, to con people into going for it.

Edited November 16, 2014 by eFestivals

[LJS]

but - also from me, in the same words - you can't make those cuts without affecting business, and causing a downturn as a result. I'm amused that you've chosen to ignore that part of the whole.

When a 3% corp tax cut was the plan - a plan that no one in Scotland would have had a say on after voting yes - then it was clear that disadvantaging business wasn't on the agenda. Enabling business to run off with even more of the money was.

I see St Nicola said yesterday (or Friday?) that austerity shouldn't happen. I see that paying your own way - Scottish money for the Scottish economy - is not part of the SNP's plan when within the UK. How very independently minded of her.

And, you need to note, that means huge cuts in public spending if/when Scotland becomes indie. The very scenario I was pointing out 2 months ago is ingrained within the SNP; indie equals cuts, just as much as the UK equals wonga galore via Barnet.

And as i've said consistently, that's fine if Scotland wants that. It's not fine to go for indie on the promise of the impossible, to con people into going for it.

Thanks for clarifying that it was you who said all these things ..

Not me!

[eFestivals]

Firstly, I did not "admit" there would be a downturn. I "admitted" we might be bit worse off for a wee while but I never accepted that was inevitable.

So if it's not inevitable, that means the costs of becoming indie don't exist.

Either all economic principles are wrong, or you've made an error of judgement.

[eFestivals]

Thanks for clarifying that it was you who said all these things ..

Not me!

Yes, I join up the dots of small ideas into a coherent whole.

It's the smarter way of doing things than picking just the convenient things and saying "everything will be fine" via deliberate obscuration.

[eFestivals]

hey, remember Scotland: tonight is only a footie match.

[LondonTom]

hey, remember Scotland: tonight is only a footie match.

We should play for keepsies over the oil

[atomised]

Waterloo bonfire society finally got to blow up their Alex salmond tableau last night at Barcombe bonfire celebrations

[Comfy Bean]

Smith Commission reports tomorrow. According to this guy Labour have dropped some objections. Murphy was on the news last night supporting the income tax changes (last minute change of heart). The interviewer asked him if he had heard " whispers " about the announcement and this had led to his change of heart. He could hardly keep a straight face but said he had not

Will be good to watch how all this develops. Expect the SNP Govt to step up their game. If they do, it could be the start of proving some of the people who doubted them wrong

http://blogs.channel4.com/gary-gibbon-on-politics/scottish-labour-despair/29709

[Comfy Bean]

NS announced plans for the year ahead today. Going to have another look at a fairer council tax system amongst other things. No mention of tax cuts for the rich or freezing benefits Instead she`s going to scrap business rate exemptions for shooting and deer stalking estates. Good a place to start as any !

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-30193791

[russycarps]

So the price of oil plunged below $80 a barrel to $77.75

My understanding is saudi arabia will allow prices to fall a little further to put pressure on Iran and the US shale industry before they cut back production and let prices stabilise at around $85-90 a barrel, which is all they need it to be at to create a revenue surplus.

Of course any country that has an economy based on a higher price is going to be bent over and fucked up the shitter in the meantime. The likes of venezuela, iran, libya will be really hurting.

Can someone just remind me what Scotland's plan B was, in the event that oil prices fell below the magic $113 they required to balance the books?

[eFestivals]

No mention of tax cuts for the rich or freezing benefits

That'll be because she doesn't have the power to do either of those things.

But she does have the power to to increase taxes on the rich, and despite all the claims of how Scotland will make the rich pay for the poor, it's not happening - again, still - is it?

[MichaelsBeard]

^ There's no spin or rhetoric with that! Of course, Salmond knew full well oil couldn't realistically maintain the price he said but it wouldn't have suited his cause to admit that.

Thoughts on the Smith Commission? More decisions about Scotland's finances will now be taken here in Scotland, all the while without losing the financial security that comes with the Barnett formula. Totally keeping within the No camps 'Vow' of safer change within the UK.

Recommendations were never going to be enough for many. It suits their stance for that to be the case.

[eFestivals]

Thoughts on the Smith Commission? More decisions about Scotland's finances will now be taken here in Scotland, all the while without losing the financial security that comes with the Barnett formula. Totally keeping within the No camps 'Vow' of safer change within the UK.

I don't get that at all - either it means no change at all for Scotland or it means that Scotland reaps any benefits while rUK carries the costs if Scotland fucks up.

And all the while, the SNP will keep allowing - even helping - the rich to run away with the money.

[Comfy Bean]

So the price of oil plunged below $80 a barrel to $77.75

My understanding is saudi arabia will allow prices to fall a little further to put pressure on Iran and the US shale industry before they cut back production and let prices stabilise at around $85-90 a barrel, which is all they need it to be at to create a revenue surplus.

Of course any country that has an economy based on a higher price is going to be bent over and fucked up the shitter in the meantime. The likes of venezuela, iran, libya will be really hurting.

Can someone just remind me what Scotland's plan B was, in the event that oil prices fell below the magic $113 they required to balance the books?

Some good points here mate. As I said when you last updated here on the falling price, it is a concern and something the Scottish Govt need to address. As you say, there is a lot of politics at play and the Countries you mentioned are unfairly pawns in the game. For balance, I would add that to my knowledge, the good folks of Norway are not queing at the foodbanks just yet so not pissing away all the oil revenues for decades could have been an option for us. Also wanted to add that you sound as if you know what your talking about with this oil stuff ( certainly you know more than I do ) but how do you know today what the price per barrel will be in 2018 ?

You surely need to " know "that before you can take the piss out of the $113 average price prediction ?

I think we have had this Plan B stuff out before and agreed to disagree but.....since you asked, part of the plan involved walking away from renewing pointless trident and you would have been paying for you own fancy sewerage and train sets ( I could go on )

[Comfy Bean]

^ There's no spin or rhetoric with that! Of course, Salmond knew full well oil couldn't realistically maintain the price he said but it wouldn't have suited his cause to admit that.

Thoughts on the Smith Commission? More decisions about Scotland's finances will now be taken here in Scotland, all the while without losing the financial security that comes with the Barnett formula. Totally keeping within the No camps 'Vow' of safer change within the UK.

Recommendations were never going to be enough for many. It suits their stance for that to be the case.

I see there is programe / debate on bbc2 later tonight on the smith commission featuring most of the main players so will probably watch that ( it`s all rock`n`roll here !! ). I`m not so sure we have got a result totally in keeping with the " vow " but no doubt Labour have given up the most ground - did they really have a choice ? They are in such a mess up here.

Why do we think that Westminster didn`t want to give Scotland the ability to raise the personal allowance bit of income tax ?

We will never know ( well maybe ) if the SNP would have done it but they were talking about " lifting Scots out of in-work poverty ". Surely we would all support this whatever country we live in. Why would Westminster want to hang on to this bit in particular ?

I agree with you that there will be many who would never have been happy. I would like to have seen us take full responsibility for everything but agree with Lord fella that it does give us a " stronger, more accountable Parliament "

It`s baby steps but for me they are in the right direction.

[Comfy Bean]

That'll be because she doesn't have the power to do either of those things.

But she does have the power to to increase taxes on the rich, and despite all the claims of how Scotland will make the rich pay for the poor, it's not happening - again, still - is it?

How many "poor" people do you know that own shooting estates ? I`d guess it will be the same number of rich people you know who were affected by the bedroom tax !

Do you think that it is a good thing that the SNP will re-visit the fairness of the Council Tax ?

We already know that Scotland already has a simpler CTR scheme that is the same across the 32 authorities meaning people don`t lose out via complicated systems when they move around the country. Surely these are good things. Would have been really interesting to see what NS would have done with full control on income tax. I can`t say for sure of course but I liked what I was hearing and it was certainly different from what I`m hearing from the Westminster Parties. Think either you or LJS had made the point before that the SNP have been able to play it safe for years in the build up to the referendum. Will be interesting to see how they get on with the business of running the country now. I`m not 100% sure yet but I think I`d like to see them committing to getting on with that for a while by leaving Indy out of their next manifesto.

[eFestivals]

it is a concern and something the Scottish Govt need to address.

Do you realise the only sane way of addressing it? It's this....

Stating that Scotland is not as viable an independent nation as many in Scotland wish to believe.

Yes, iScotland can be viable, but what it can't be is guaranteed as rich as it is currently.

For balance, I would add that to my knowledge, the good folks of Norway are not queing at the foodbanks just yet

and for some real balance, you need to include that Norway had and has 10 times the oil and gas resources that Scotland does.

Why do nats always forget to mention that part of things?

so not pissing away all the oil revenues for decades could have been an option for us.

whether it could or couldn't, it's now too late to bother mentioning.

Also wanted to add that you sound as if you know what your talking about with this oil stuff ( certainly you know more than I do ) but how do you know today what the price per barrel will be in 2018 ?

You surely need to " know "that before you can take the piss out of the $113 average price prediction ?

No one can successfully predict the price (tho someone might correctly guess).

The only prediction that's worthwhile and accurate is that whenever the priue peaks of $113 or more might occur, they'll be surrounded by price troughs like now.

There were few facts in the indy debate, but the fact that Alex and the nats ignored was this: oil prices are volatile, too volatile for the likes of Scotland to have to rely on for 16% of its budget.

I think we have had this Plan B stuff out before and agreed to disagree but.....since you asked, part of the plan involved walking away from renewing pointless trident and you would have been paying for you own fancy sewerage and train sets ( I could go on )

PMSL.

How many times do you need to be told there was no extra money for iScotland from no-Trident? If you'd read the white paper, you'd know this. It all gets spent (and more) on Scottish defence forces.

And, how many times do you need to be told that "fancy sewerage and train sets" are excluded from GERS, so there's no extra money for iScotland from those either.

Inventing extra money out of thin air was all of the indy campaign, and very effective at attracting the numerically illiterate it was too. It would be much less effective at financing an independent country's budget tho.

[eFestivals]

I`m not so sure we have got a result totally in keeping with the " vow "

To know, you'd firstly have to know what 'the vow' promised. Do you?

Countless people have called the vow a big lie since 19th Sept, and yet to-date every single aspect of every part of it has been fulfilled.

But the nats myth will be that it was a lie, it's guaranteed. Cos if nats start to reference facts they won't know where they are.

but no doubt Labour have given up the most ground - did they really have a choice ? They are in such a mess up here.

when the likes of you start moaning about Scotland having 2nd class MPs at Westminster, you'll know that they did have a choice but caved in to the pressure of the people who are not thinking things thru.

Why would Westminster want to hang on to this bit in particular ?

to stop Scotland bankrupting itself and rUK having to bail it out?

I've no idea if that's the reason they're working from, but it's as valid a reason as any other reason anyone might suggest.

[eFestivals]

How many "poor" people do you know that own shooting estates ? I`d guess it will be the same number of rich people you know who were affected by the bedroom tax !

it's a good thing that a massive tax break around the feudal land laws of Scotland is ending.

That's it ending after 7 years of a "left leaning" SNP govt. With feudal land laws still 100% in existence under that "left leaning" SNP govt, with no stated intention to change them.

Meanwhile, Scotland is the only part of the UK still adhering to Thatcherite bus deregulation where taxpayers pay the rich to get richer, which I'm guessing is a Scottish version of 'left-leaning'?

Or, just perhaps, it's a Scottish version of Scottish party political funding, with hundreds of millions of taxpayers money to Souter each year and £1M back to the SNP each year from Souter?

Do you think that it is a good thing that the SNP will re-visit the fairness of the Council Tax ?

It depends on what solution they propose.

Most parties are currently revisiting it, but as yet they've all come up with still-money-for-the-rich solutions.

Would have been really interesting to see what NS would have done with full control on income tax.

nothing, the same as Salmond, just perhaps?

These are not things to be used to expose the SNP as what it is, these are things to be used to con the too-stupid of Scotland: "we can't do anything left-leaning until we're allowed to do everything left-leaning".

Yep, that's social justice in action.

I can`t say for sure of course but I liked what I was hearing and it was certainly different from what I`m hearing from the Westminster Parties. Think either you or LJS had made the point before that the SNP have been able to play it safe for years in the build up to the referendum. Will be interesting to see how they get on with the business of running the country now. I`m not 100% sure yet but I think I`d like to see them committing to getting on with that for a while by leaving Indy out of their next manifesto.

See just above.

The SNP's record is almost exclusively of giving extra benefits to the middle classes while depriving the poorest of resources to pay for it.

Given that the support of the middle classes is how parties win elections - yes, in Scotland too - that's not going to change any time soon.

If it was, the SNP wouldn't have taxed the poor to give benefits to the already-doing-OK's.

Edited November 28, 2014 by eFestivals

[Comfy Bean]

No matter which way you lent in the Indy Ref here`s 2 mins entertainment as the shiny fud manages to patronise the f*ck out of St Andrews day ( yesterday ).

In that short time he manages to mention bagpipes, haggis, tartan, flags above no.10, ebola, isa, saltires oh and " scotch "

[russycarps]

Some good points here mate. As I said when you last updated here on the falling price, it is a concern and something the Scottish Govt need to address. As you say, there is a lot of politics at play and the Countries you mentioned are unfairly pawns in the game. For balance, I would add that to my knowledge, the good folks of Norway are not queing at the foodbanks just yet so not pissing away all the oil revenues for decades could have been an option for us. Also wanted to add that you sound as if you know what your talking about with this oil stuff ( certainly you know more than I do ) but how do you know today what the price per barrel will be in 2018 ?

You surely need to " know "that before you can take the piss out of the $113 average price prediction ?

I think we have had this Plan B stuff out before and agreed to disagree but.....since you asked, part of the plan involved walking away from renewing pointless trident and you would have been paying for you own fancy sewerage and train sets ( I could go on )

The only people who know what the price of oil will be in 2018 are the Saudi Arabians. They control the price of oil, and they could not care less what countries suffer in the meantime. From big players like Iran and Venezuela to minnows like scotland - they couldnt give a shit.

But with US shale, canadian oil sands, the deep water brazilian oil fields (which will soon be profitable to extract when technology improves) I just cant see how prices will be high. Especially considering saudi arabia have just declared war on the us shale industry. Oil prices were down to $72 on friday I believe...

But oil prices are cyclical so will no doubt go up again, but what was scotland's plan b in the low-price years? they couldnt borrow the money and would you want an economy based on debt anyway?

Norway will no longer rely on the oil itself for their income, they will rely on investments made with the oil reserve fund they've built up. Something scotland will never have (or never could have had as they had nothing like the same reserves as norway)

Edited December 1, 2014 by russycarps

[Comfy Bean]

The only people who know what the price of oil will be in 2018 are the Saudi Arabians. They control the price of oil, and they could not care less what countries suffer in the meantime. From big players like Iran and Venezuela to minnows like scotland - they couldnt give a shit.

But with US shale, canadian oil sands, the deep water brazilian oil fields (which will soon be profitable to extract when technology improves) I just cant see how prices will be high. Especially considering saudi arabia have just declared war on the us shale industry. Oil prices were down to $72 on friday I believe...

But oil prices are cyclical so will no doubt go up again, but what was scotland's plan b in the low-price years? they couldnt borrow the money and would you want an economy based on debt anyway?

Norway will no longer rely on the oil itself for their income, they will rely on investments made with the oil reserve fund they've built up. Something scotland will never have (or never could have had as they had nothing like the same reserves as norway)

Cheers Russy. Good stuff. Did you like Dave`s St Andrews day address to our nation ? He is so sincere I was a bit misty !

Various Westminster Govts could have started doing something like an oil fund but your right, it`s too late now. I think I`m right in saying that Norway`s economy is more dependent on oil ( % wise ) than Scotlands will ever be and as you know, I maintain that there would have been savings to be made from Scotland going Independent.......as well as costs of course.

Scotland has some crazy % of Europe`s total natural resources and I`ve said before that with Indy we could have been investing everything we could from the oil tax into the science and technology in all these greener areas creating jobs and selling to the world. We both know that whatever money comes in from the oil, obviously less than was predicted although a lot can happen between now and 2018, it will not be invested in jobs - just like the last few decades

The Tories have nothing to lose up here ( votes wise ).

http://www.scotsman.com/news/environment/wind-energy-alone-powered-scottish-homes-in-october-1-3593045

Edited December 1, 2014 by comfortablynumb1910

[eFestivals]

I think I`m right in saying that Norway`s economy is more dependent on oil

Norway also has (or at least, had) shit more oil than Scotland ever did, too.

I know it's one of the nats favourite things to compare Scotland with Norway, but they're taking the piss out of you by doing so.

Tho if you've not yet wised up to the fact that SNP are happy for you to believe anything which does their bidding there's no much point in telling you that.

[eFestivals]

I maintain that there would have been savings to be made from Scotland going Independent.

Can you define them, to see if what you maintain aligns with the facts?

Cos last week you were saying how there'd be savings for iScotland cos of no Trident - and yet the SNP's own white paper said there wasn't.

You also said there'd be savings from London train sets and sewers too, but that's not the case either (from within GERS).

So where are these savings coming from, that you maintain to exist?

Edited December 1, 2014 by eFestivals