The Dirty Independence Question

[eFestivals]

10 hours ago, LJS said:

We would be richer in so many other ways through the loss of almost constant Tory governments.

and you're so very confident about that that you have to keep on lying and denying about the *REAL* deficit issues.

If you really believed what you've written there you could admit the deficit and the pain it would cause and sell indy what you say there. So why aren't you?

Might it be because the 'richer' you're claiming from no tories would cost Scotland much more than the most evil of tory cuts? Why yes it would,

The cuts required to deal with the deficit gap is waaaay more than the tories will force on Scotland.

[eFestivals]

11 hours ago, LJS said:

If you like, once we are independent there will be no Uk part of the deficit, there will be one deficit which we will have to deal with but not, as you always seem to imply, overnight. 

If you became indy tomorrow, there's a £15Bn deficit to be dealt with.

In just ten years, not dealing with that £15Bn deficit will add - that's *ADD* - 100% of GDP to Scotland's existing debts of around 90% of GDP. No fucker is going to lend a newly independent Scotland that percentage of GDP. 

In fact, no fucker is going to lend it money beyond 100% of GDP, because it has no credit history and a stonking deficit.

So yes, overnight - or three years at very very most - is all you have to get the deficit under 3%.

The huge pain of huge cuts is simply unavoidable.

[eFestivals]

11 hours ago, LJS said:

Oh god its the supermarket sweep theory of economics again. How come the Scottish deficit has been falling without reducing spending or increasing taxes?

The obvious conclusion - the one you keep on proving - is that some people understand economics and some people don't. 

The proportional tax take has increased because the population has increased (more in the UK than in Scotland) while the spending has stayed flat in Scotland.

Perhaps ask your missus for a book for xmas?

Edited December 22, 2016 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

11 hours ago, LJS said:

Ha ha the great myth returns  - I can't be bothered checking Chokka's table but, as far as I remember,  according to him our onshore deficit has been reducing by about £1Bn a year for the past 5 or 6 years. If we can keep that up we'll be in surplus within about a dozen years of independence.

 

LJS advocates that the Scottish spend-percentage of UK-GDP keeps on reducing by much more than the tories plan to cut.

 

[eFestivals]

11 hours ago, LJS said:

Bollocks, I have deliberately been using GERS figures as presented by your mate for some time now. to show clearly a viable way forward for Scotland 

You also have to use some understanding of what they actually mean, which is where you fail.

 

Quote

I don't need to quantify it. Kevin has done it for me.

Except he hasn't done the understanding part for you, and you've not done it for you either.

 

Quote

What? This is just nonsense - are you suggesting "we've got a great plan but we're not going to tell you it... yet" is a viable position. Please get real.

They could say they'll be able to present a viable plan.

They can't even say that much, they can only say "there's more to indy than the economics", and there's a reason why they're saying that.

 

Quote

Except, of course, that is not what she said. Or were you paraphrasing again?

The meaning of her inference was clear.

If it wasn't, she wouldn't be suggesting that the economics are negative. :roilleyes:

 

Quote

I think he has some sort of physics/science background but then your hero's cv isn't great on that stuff either.

Your matey is not only claiming to know more than Kev, he's claiming to know more than Salmond and Sturgeon (he's called them wrong about pensions in the white paper).

Are you now believing that random non-financial-based Scots know more about Scotland and it's finances than two of Scotland's first ministers?

There's a reason why Salmond, Sturgeon and Kev Hague are as one on the pensions issue, and it's not because random-wrong-matey has it nailed.

(even you said random-wrong-matey was wrong on pensions!!!! ... and now you're trying to big him up :lol:)

 

Quote

My background isan't particularly strong on economics but even I have been able to show clearly that Scotland can realistically reduce its deficit,

PMSL

You haven't, you really really REALLY haven't.

You're calling Salmond wrong by a factor of at least ten times. Do you think Salmond underplayed Scotland's strengths, to show than as just one tenth of what you say they are? PMSL.  

And you're taking something caused by one factor, and claiming it's caused by something entirely different.

Either because you don't understand it, or because you'#re deliberately lying about it (only you know which of those it is).

Why is Salmond's own take not good enough for you?

(there's a lot to call into question with Salmond's take, but it's still HUGELY better than your own laughable version)

 

Quote

And iI've done it so effectively that you are starting to fling in previously unmentioned factors such as population growth to try & discredit my position as well as constantly droning on about an entirely irrelevant notional deficit gap.

OMFG.

You really are that dumb.

 

Quote

 I'm really happy to wait & see what the proposition is if and when indyref2 comes along. 

How happy were you with the SNP's stated position indyref1? Oh, i remember, you said it was beyond dispute.

So why the stonking deficit now, if what the SNP might present is trustworthy?

 

Quote

Except I've done it with a bit of help from Kevin

Only if you believe that running a deficit is impossible which is clearly a ridiculous position to take. How nanty years since the end of WW2 has the UK not had a deficit?

I don't say running a deficit is impossible. :rolleyes:

I say running a deficit of greater than 3% of GDP is unsustainable, because that's the commonly-held view of economists worldwide.

The EU would not accept iScotland as a member with a deficit greater than 3%.

But you say Scotland is exceptional and can ignore the real world.

 

Edited December 22, 2016 by eFestivals

[LJS]

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

PMSL.

The Barnett Formula provides Scotland with an extra chuck of money - detailed as the £1200 extra per-person in Scotland within the GERS summary.

And you say it plays no part....? PMSL.

You sure about that Neil? I suggest you check.

[eFestivals]

1 minute ago, LJS said:

You sure about that Neil? I suggest you check.

WTF?

How the fuck you think Scotland ends up with £1200 extra per person compared to the UK average?

 

[LJS]

16 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

WTF?

How the fuck you think Scotland ends up with £1200 extra per person compared to the UK average?

oh, dear. I thought you understood GERS. Clearly you are even more dumb than you think I am.

[eFestivals]

This is absolutely ridiculous.

There's no bit of data you won't dispute, despite the fact that the SNP accept the stuff you reject.

This is what cybernats do.

Nothing can be proven 'against' their take without first working from a certainty.

But it also means they can prove nothing themselves, nor can they accept any plan - not even the perfect plan that LJS promises Sturgeon will deliver.

Empty vessels, desperately hanging onto their emotions because they kinow the facts are against them.

[eFestivals]

Just now, LJS said:

oh, dear. I thought you understood GERS. Clearly you are even more dumb than you think I am.

Does Scotland receive extra money above the UK average via the Barnett formula? Yes it does.

Is that Barnett money included within the numbers that GERS presents? Yes it is.

Go on smart guy, tell me how that's wrong and you're right.

FFS

[LJS]

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

Does Scotland receive extra money above the UK average via the Barnett formula? Yes it does.

Is that Barnett money included within the numbers that GERS presents? Yes it is.

Go on smart guy, tell me how that's wrong and you're right.

FFS

If it's included in the money Scotland gets in GERS, how come the deficit is £15bn?

The point of GERS is that it attempts to give figures for revenue actually raised in Scotland which does not include fiscal transfers from Westminster.

I really thought you understood that.

[eFestivals]

33 minutes ago, LJS said:

If it's included in the money Scotland gets in GERS, how come the deficit is £15bn?

The point of GERS is that it attempts to give figures for revenue actually raised in Scotland which does not include fiscal transfers from Westminster.

I really thought you understood that.

The Barnett money is included in the money Scotland gets and which is detailed in GERS. FFS.

GERS accounts for all spending by both the SG directly and 'Scotland via Westminster', and included within that spending is the Barnett money.

The deficit is exactly what you said it was - notional. Until indy, when it's real.

FFS.

 

Edited December 22, 2016 by eFestivals

[LJS]

2 hours ago, eFestivals said:

The Barnett money is included in the money Scotland gets and which is detailed in GERS. FFS.

GERS accounts for all spending by both the SG directly and 'Scotland via Westminster', and included within that spending is the Barnett money.

The deficit is exactly what you said it was - notional. Until indy, when it's real.

FFS.

 

1. Public sector revenue is estimated for taxes where a financial burden is imposed on residents and enterprises in Scotland

That's your gers methodology for you. If it included Barnett money as income, you would be unable to bang on about our £15bn deficit.

[eFestivals]

1 hour ago, LJS said:

1. Public sector revenue is estimated for taxes where a financial burden is imposed on residents and enterprises in Scotland

That's your gers methodology for you. If it included Barnett money as income, you would be unable to bang on about our £15bn deficit.

The barnett money is money for Scotland to spend, and which is spent. GERS details all spending.

GERS also details all revenues raised in Scotland.

The notional deficit is the difference between them - but there is no actual deficit. As you love to mindlessly boast, the SG doesn't run a debt.

There's no actual deficit because...? Because the UK gives Scotland all of the money it spends, and that includes the barnett money.

The Barnett money is included in GERS within what the SG spends. 

FFS.

 

Edited December 22, 2016 by eFestivals

[LJS]

5 hours ago, eFestivals said:

The barnett money is money for Scotland to spend, and which is spent. GERS details all spending.

GERS also details all revenues raised in Scotland.

The notional deficit is the difference between them - but there is no actual deficit. As you love to mindlessly boast, the SG doesn't run a debt.

There's no actual deficit because...? Because the UK gives Scotland all of the money it spends, and that includes the barnett money.

The Barnett money is included in GERS within what the SG spends. 

FFS.

 

I give up

 

First Barnett was part of Scotland's GERS income.

Now its part of the GERS expenditure.

You put your left leg in, you put your left leg out....

The whole point of GERS is to estimate what Scotland's finances would look like without Barnett! 

The we started flinging in Scotland's rising population - a rising population means deficit per capita is falling faster than the stand alone deficit - I'll take that.

Then we tried gdp - rising GDP means - you guessed it - our deficit as a % of gdp is falling faster than the raw deficit figure.

Whichever way you turn it's all getting better  - not suggesting we are starting from the ideal spot but then considering we've been shackled to the disastrous debt ridden UK for the past 300 years or so, that's hardly surprising. 

You do the Hokey Cokey & you turn yourself about.

 

 

 

 

 

[Comfy Bean]

6 minutes ago, LJS said:

I give up

 

First Barnett was part of Scotland's GERS income.

Now its part of the GERS expenditure.

You put your left leg in, you put your left leg out....

The whole point of GERS is to estimate what Scotland's finances would look like without Barnett! 

The we started flinging in Scotland's rising population - a rising population means deficit per capita is falling faster than the stand alone deficit - I'll take that.

Then we tried gdp - rising GDP means - you guessed it - our deficit as a % of gdp is falling faster than the raw deficit figure.

Whichever way you turn it's all getting better  - not suggesting we are starting from the ideal spot but then considering we've been shackled to the disastrous debt ridden UK for the past 300 years or so, that's hardly surprising. 

You do the Hokey Cokey & you turn yourself about.

 

 

 

 

 

I think the last time we discussed gers/Barnett I also gave up mate.

When you think about it Neil's stance is more than a little ironic.

Look at how shit Scotland is performing while tied in with rule brittania and governed by the principles and policies of a Tory government. Look at the state of the debts/deficit, you can never leave. Please stay within our glorious union while we separate from the Eu/single market.

As I said the last time, the smoke and mirrors of the Barnett consequentials show how much of a shit the tories give about the folks in Scotland. Who knew lol !?

[eFestivals]

11 hours ago, LJS said:

I give up

First Barnett was part of Scotland's GERS income.

Now its part of the GERS expenditure.

Barnett *IS part of Scotland's income.

That means its also part of Scotland's spending.

Scoitland's spending is detailed in GERS.

Which means the Barnett money is detailed in GERS.

 

Quote

The whole point of GERS is to estimate what Scotland's finances would look like without Barnett! 

Nope, it's an attempt at national accounts. It conforms (as much as the not-precise data allows) to international standards for national accounts.

It details spending, and it details revenues raised in Scotland (and not revenues received by Scotland).

Which leaves  £15Bn difference, that is the notional deficit.

Because it's a notional deficit and not a real deficit, it's clear that the difference between the numbers is made up with money that Westminster sends Scotland. That Westminster money above the revenues raised in Scotland is both of the Barnett money and the Scottish proportion of UK borrowing 

 

Quote

The we started flinging in Scotland's rising population - a rising population means deficit per capita is falling faster than the stand alone deficit - I'll take that.

Then we tried gdp - rising GDP means - you guessed it - our deficit as a % of gdp is falling faster than the raw deficit figure.

Whichever way you turn it's all getting better  - not suggesting we are starting from the ideal spot but then considering we've been shackled to the disastrous debt ridden UK for the past 300 years or so, that's hardly surprising. 

You do the Hokey Cokey & you turn yourself about.

Scotland's deficit is getting better but the Scottish part of the deficit (as opposed to whole-UK deficit) - the part caused by the spending of the Barnett money - is not getting better.

If the scottish part was getting better the lines for UK deficit and Scottish deficit would not be parallel, they would instead be getting closer together.

All of the reduction of the Scottish deficit is down to UK averages, and does nothing to close the 'deficit gap'. That position only improves if/when Scotland outperforms the UK averages ... and when it's a long time since scotland even hit* the average revenue levels it's a long long way off when Scotland spends significantly more.
(* Scotland gets decently close to average revenue raising, but still underperforms against the average).
 

When you don't even understand what GERS details.lists, you're not in a good position to comment on it.

When you don't grasp that the Scottish problem-part of the deficit is not changing but claim it is, you prove this is all beyond your understanding.

Edited December 23, 2016 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

10 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

I think the last time we discussed gers/Barnett I also gave up mate.

When you think about it Neil's stance is more than a little ironic.

Look at how shit Scotland is performing while tied in with rule brittania and governed by the principles and policies of a Tory government. Look at the state of the debts/deficit, you can never leave. Please stay within our glorious union while we separate from the Eu/single market.

As I said the last time, the smoke and mirrors of the Barnett consequentials show how much of a shit the tories give about the folks in Scotland. Who knew lol !?

Why does scotland have a large deficit? Why not listen to your FM instead of expose your ignorance?

According to her "the Scottish economy is fundamentally strong". According to her "It costs much more to deliver" services in Scotland.

Which one of you is the bulllshitter who's making it up out of stupidity and ignorance?

You, or the FM who you believe to be the UK's most capable politician?

Andrew Neil: 
We are where we are now. The reason you're running a deficit is because per capita spending is so much higher in Scotland. It's 1400 pounds higher, public spending per person. Westminster foots that bill. It's the difference between your tax revenues and what you spend. You wouldn't be able to do it if it wasn't for Westminster.

Nicola Sturgeon:
It's a deficit. The UK's in deficit. Scotland is in deficit. This idea that we are some kind of subsidy is not one I have ever accepted ...

Andrew Neil:
It's twice as big, First Minister. It's twice as big.

Nicola Sturgeon:
Let me ... Well, in 2008/'09, the UK's deficit was twice as big as Scotland's. It will vary from year to year. In terms of the point about per capita spending, there are very good reasons, as anybody who knows Scotland well as you certainly do for that difference.

We have a country where one in five of our population lives in our rural and remote community. I was Health Secretary for five years. It costs much more to deliver health services on an island or rural community than it does here in the centre of the city of Glasgow ...

 

 

[Comfy Bean]

Are you now claiming that I don't think it costs more to run Scotlands public services lol

Ive been saying that on here for years !

clue : geography.

Your whole post appears to be yet another attempt to move goalposts. My point was around how Scotland was performing under U.K. Tory policies and priorities. I mentioned current debt and deficit.

You hold gers up as a reason we should stay in the U.K. And leave the single market. I'm not sure your thinking this through. Perhaps you think the union must survive at all costs. I don't.

[eFestivals]

9 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

Are you now claiming that I don't think it costs more to run Scotlands public services lol

Ive been saying that on here for years !

clue : geography.

Your whole post appears to be yet another attempt to move goalposts. My point was around how Scotland was performing under U.K. Tory policies and priorities. I mentioned current debt and deficit.

You hold gers up as a reason we should stay in the U.K. And leave the single market. I'm not sure your thinking this through. Perhaps you think the union must survive at all costs. I don't.

Scotland's greater-than-UK-average deficit problem is the result of Scotland's greater-than-the-UK-average spending.

As you now say you know that's the case, why did you just above try claiming it's because Westminster has been shafting Scotland?

It's you who's trying to move the goalposts, by not accepting what the cause of the problem is, and where the 'blame' for it lies.

(there is no 'blame' - as you say, it's geography).

Having identified the problem (the *real* cause of the problem), the solution is cutting spending, raising taxes, or the Scottish economy outperforming the UK average.

However, as Scotland has shit geography, guess what? Outperforming a country with better geography and demographics just isn't possible for Scotland. There's no magic which can change that truth.

So stop with the bullshit, and accept that indy for scotland comes at the price of Scotland and the people within it being comparatively poorer to now.

Just like I said to LJS, each time you deny the money you prove it's all about the money.

Edited December 23, 2016 by eFestivals

[Comfy Bean]

You are yet again saying above that Scotland should be looking to  outperform a country with better geography and demographics. I'm assuming you again are meaning England. How many times does it need to be pointed out that after we are Indy we will wish England well and be on our way.

 The union will be dead and we will all be free to choose our own path.

As I've said before, after Indy it makes more sense to compare our performance with countries of similar size, population, geography. As you know, like for like makes more sense and we also know how much London skews the overall England and current UK figures.

From memory, London and Scotland held the overall figures up in a good light for decades. Is it not meant to be us that are obsessed with flags lol.

Anywayz, do you agree that the eu  thing causes a major concern for Scotlands economy as we see the powers slowly come in our direction?

We need the immigration , yes ?

 

[Comfy Bean]

" as you now say "

Sorry I missed this bit. Are you claiming that I have never previously said that the geography of our Country strongly impacts on the cost of delivering services.

Please be specific :-)

[eFestivals]

14 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

You are yet again saying above that Scotland should be looking to  outperform a country with better geography and demographics.

Nope, not me.

It's LJS who's been saying that, when he says iScotland can grow its economy by enough so that all of Scotland's deficit is dealt with so there's no need for tax rises or massive cuts. 

I'm pointing out that it just ain't going to happen.

And i'm pleased to see you agree. 

Perhaps you should have a word with LJS, to wise him up to the reality?

 

14 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

How many times does it need to be pointed out that after we are Indy we will wish England well and be on our way.

Until you face up to the REAL consequences of what it all means.

Cos when iScotland spends too much for what it can raise in revenues, what will iScotland have to do?

Cut, cut, cut and cut again, by waaaay more than the tories have cut.

 

14 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

As I've said before, after Indy it makes more sense to compare our performance with countries of similar size

And your wealth levels too?

To make the books balance, perhaps you might be like Ireland.

Without a national health service.

The problem Scotland has is that it's used to UK wealth levels, and already complains that those wealth levels are too low. Scotland bangs on about how "austerity" is hurting people in Scotland.

What do you think even less money for the Scottish Govt to spend will do?

 

14 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

Anywayz, do you agree that the eu  thing causes a major concern for Scotlands economy as we see the powers slowly come in our direction?

Leaving the EU will impact negatively onto Scotland by X-amount

Leaving the UK to stay within the EU will impact negatively onto Scotland by around four times X-amount.

From an economic point of view it's a no-brainer. The UK is better for Scotland than the EU.

There's other things which might make people prefer the EU. If that's what you want instead go for it, but just don't give any bullshit about it not making you much poorer.

 

Quote

We need the immigration , yes ?

Yep, you need a huge amount just to be able to economically stand still, because of the aging population problem.

It's not a way to salvation for the other economic issues.

[eFestivals]

6 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

" as you now say "

Sorry I missed this bit. Are you claiming that I have never previously said that the geography of our Country strongly impacts on the cost of delivering services.

Please be specific :-)

You blamed Westminster, just above. :rolleyes:

It's fuck all to do with Westminster and everything to do with Scotland's geography.So why did you blame Westminster?

It's you who roll out the bullshit by dropping in what you know is bollocks, and we end up arguing all of the same old bollocks until you throw in another myth when the truth gets too hard to deny. This is my life trying to have a sensible discussion with cybernats.

[Comfy Bean]

4 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

You blamed Westminster, just above.

It's fuck all to do with Westminster and everything to do with Scotland's geography.So why did you blame Westminster?

It's you who roll out the bullshit by dropping in what you know is bollocks, and we end up arguing all of the same old bollocks until you throw in another myth when the truth gets too hard to deny. This is my life trying to have a sensible discussion with cybernats.

Ok....

You mention Westminster 3 times here. You claim I'm blaming Westminster just above.

You also said I was blaming Westminster in your earlier post.

I mentioned Tory policies and priorities, debts and deficit.

Can you please quote me blaming Westminster....you claim it's just above so shouldn't be difficult!

You also didn't bother addressing my specific question on today being the first time I've noticed how our geography could impact on the cost of delivering public services in Scotland.

Its as if you built this Westminster straw man to try and rapidly row back from the fact you were talking shit.

If you'd care to answer that specific question I'm quite happy to provide various quotes to back up my... your talking shit statement.