Jump to content

GERS figures


Fudger

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Fudger said:

They accepted and highlighted them during the supposed good times of surplus and now quietly accept during the supposed bad times...so what’s your point? They accepted them. 

When allocating costs in any business there is a degree of estimation, don’t see the big deal with that element of it. 

for the avoidance of doubt there’s no need to be a smart arse

During the “good times” when Scotlands wealth was transferred south the figures still came with the clarification that they were estimates. For the avoidance of doubt Scotland isn’t a business, but in either scenario the GERS figures show the Scottish economy has been managed poorly. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Fudger said:

As I said RAG, I’m not fully buying into them as a true reflection of our performance or potential. I do find it strange the nats government accept them, surely a perfect chance to highlight the shackles and jackboot of London.....

GERS shows Ireland has an economy 68% bigger than Scotlands in the Uk.  An unacceptable figure we'd all agree, although I accept the figures as accurate of our current position in the UK.  I'd also venture an economic uptick, to the 'norm' of our surrounding neighbours economies, is on the cards once we leave the UK system.  We're that far down in comparison to our neighbours and are undervalued economically at present - bottomed out by a decade+ of Tory austerity, underinvestment and Brexit.

Edited by RAG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Fudger said:

For the avoidance of doubt, I’m not really buying into these GERS figures as a clear indicator of our performance or potential but your very own Scottish government are so what else do the rest of us plebs use to assess the economic situation of our country without resorting to our unconscious bias? 

You seem an intelligent guy, can you seriously ask the question on GERS above?  It being accepted as not only are they the only numbers available (this doesn't make them any more accurate then anyone scribbling in their own excrement) but politically they can't seep saying they're bollocks, purely for credibility purposes and to enable them to debunk and demonstrate how they show Scotland ismt being served by the union.

Indeed there are at least four people on here who have shown you how they can be shown to not in anyway represent spending or even the economic situation in an independent Scotland. 

Its inly nutjobs like mclean who simply refuse to actually see what they are  and he accepts them and the politically motivated message behind them,  without any interrogation at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, RAG said:

GERS shows Ireland has an economy 68% bigger than Scotlands in the Uk.  An unacceptable figure we'd all agree, although I accept the figures as accurate of our current position in the UK.  I'd also venture an economic uptick, to the 'norm' of our surrounding neighbours economies, is on the cards once we leave the UK system.  We're that far down in comparison to our neighbours and are undervalued economically at present - bottomed out by a decade+ of Tory austerity, underinvestment and Brexit.

Remember when Labour sent £1.5bn of our block grant back south because they couldn’t think of anything to spend it on. I wonder what that level of investment in East Ayrshire could’ve achieved. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, RAG said:

GERS shows Ireland has an economy 68% bigger than Scotlands in the Uk.  An unacceptable figure we'd all agree, although I accept the figures as accurate of our current position in the UK.  I'd also venture an economic uptick, to the 'norm' of our surrounding neighbours economies, is on the cards once we leave the UK system.  We're that far down in comparison to our neighbours and are undervalued economically at present - bottomed out by a decade+ of Tory austerity, underinvestment and Brexit.

Does seem strange tbh but even if we can all agree that GERS is an estimate and there will be some errors, it's an enormous differential. 
Are GERS AND the Irish counting not accurate? Is it down to the Irish business model of low corporation tax, higher employment in skilled jobs? 
Huge number of Scots working in the public sector may have an impact.....? We have very few large companies left in Scotland compared to Ireland. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Beaker71 said:

You seem an intelligent guy, can you seriously ask the question on GERS above?  It being accepted as not only are they the only numbers available (this doesn't make them any more accurate then anyone scribbling in their own excrement) but politically they can't seep saying they're bollocks, purely for credibility purposes and to enable them to debunk and demonstrate how they show Scotland ismt being served by the union.

Indeed there are at least four people on here who have shown you how they can be shown to not in anyway represent spending or even the economic situation in an independent Scotland. 

Its inly nutjobs like mclean who simply refuse to actually see what they are  and he accepts them and the politically motivated message behind them,  without any interrogation at all.

I would class myself as reasonably intelligent and well informed, although it certainly doesn't feel that way in here at times with some of the comments......all part of what we sign up for though it seems. 

I don't tend to believe everything I read and do find it very strange that the Irish economy is 68% times larger than ours, however I go back to my other point.....What other markers do we have to measure our potential output at the moment other than our gut instinct? 

Only realised today these figures are commissioned by the Scottish and not UK government, previously had thought these came from Landan town. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Fudger said:

Does seem strange tbh but even if we can all agree that GERS is an estimate and there will be some errors, it's an enormous differential. 
Are GERS AND the Irish counting not accurate? Is it down to the Irish business model of low corporation tax, higher employment in skilled jobs? 
Huge number of Scots working in the public sector may have an impact.....? We have very few large companies left in Scotland compared to Ireland. 

Its not just the inaccuracy, its how the numbers are calculated thats the issue.

The UK considers that Scotland is a part of the whole, and there is no difference between those parts.

Therefore spend such as foreign office, Defense,  whitehall, etc. Is simply divided by population share of the total spend.

This isn't inaccurate its just plain wrong as all of those items are wholly controlled by wm and therefore Scotland gets assigned soend over which it has literally no say at all.  In addition it also ignores that the vast majority of this spend is simply not spent in Scotland at all.  As such its potentially no we know its is in fact maliciously incorrect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Fudger said:

I would class myself as reasonably intelligent and well informed, although it certainly doesn't feel that way in here at times with some of the comments......all part of what we sign up for though it seems. 

I don't tend to believe everything I read and do find it very strange that the Irish economy is 68% times larger than ours, however I go back to my other point.....What other markers do we have to measure our potential output at the moment other than our gut instinct? 

Only realised today these figures are commissioned by the Scottish and not UK government, previously had thought these came from Landan town. 

That last comment is a belter, and hides the reality.  These numbers are required to be produced by the devolved assemblies AND they were produced by whitehall, and indeed most of the numbers and data still come from ..... London. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Beaker71 said:

That last comment is a belter, and hides the reality.  These numbers are required to be produced by the devolved assemblies AND they were produced by whitehall, and indeed most of the numbers and data still come from ..... London. 

Still learning about these figures old boy, trying to be impartial and truly understand them without spouting off about their accuracy or not. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Beaker71 said:

Its not just the inaccuracy, its how the numbers are calculated thats the issue.

The UK considers that Scotland is a part of the whole, and there is no difference between those parts.

Therefore spend such as foreign office, Defense,  whitehall, etc. Is simply divided by population share of the total spend.

This isn't inaccurate its just plain wrong as all of those items are wholly controlled by wm and therefore Scotland gets assigned soend over which it has literally no say at all.  In addition it also ignores that the vast majority of this spend is simply not spent in Scotland at all.  As such its potentially no we know its is in fact maliciously incorrect.

I guess this is the issue for all. how accurate are they and what makes them a true representation of the current make up. 

Defence is probably a good example of spend @ £3billion but if Scotland join Nato then our commitment won't be far off that. Also part of that £3billion cost creates considerable employment in Scotland, so it is a little disingenuous to say it should be much lower. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Beaker71 said:

are you for real here, 300 years of WM totally controlling the economy and all decisions in Scotland. 

They haven't totally controlled our economy for quite some time now and if you look at the last 5 it has remained pretty flat so is that all WM fault also? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Fudger said:

They haven't totally controlled our economy for quite some time now and if you look at the last 5 it has remained pretty flat so is that all WM fault also? 

Macroeconomic and fiscal policy are reserved matters. That means Westminster calls the shots. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Fudger said:

And this is all down to WM and being in the Union? 

A Union of equals would be no bad thing, however we suffer from being in a relationship dominated by one partner. When Scotland ran a surplus it should have been invested for a rainy day or used to develop structures to support growth in the economy. High speed broadband, better transport links, housing, education. Instead the money was squandered by Westminster. This lack of foresight and poor management by them has left us with an economy lagging behind similarly sized countries. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Fudger said:

I guess this is the issue for all. how accurate are they and what makes them a true representation of the current make up. 

Defence is probably a good example of spend @ £3billion but if Scotland join Nato then our commitment won't be far off that. Also part of that £3billion cost creates considerable employment in Scotland, so it is a little disingenuous to say it should be much lower. 

Similarly sized countries don’t spend anything near our allocated share of defence spending as NATO Members. 
 

The London Olympics or HS2 are great high profile examples of how smoke and mirrors are used to allocate spending on Scotlands behalf. Both were/are supposed to benefit the U.K. so we’re allocated a share of the cost but the reality is the east end of London and some English cities on the rail route are the real beneficiaries. If the spending had been allocated to those areas, the Scottish budget would have increased due to Barnett consequentials in the devolution funding settlement. 

Edited by Zorro
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If my arithmetic is correct, that’s £32bn of exports which the treasury was unable to allocate to a specific region. Sounds legit. Does any naughty region want to own up and admit they’re sneaking down and dumping their goods at Dover and then running away?

C5F8D9D8-0F34-4173-8847-3B6F4D322AAA.jpeg

Edited by Zorro
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/29/2020 at 10:29 AM, Mclean07 said:

I refuse to be, but the hate filled, ugly comments piled onto the likes of Kirsty Wark and Sarah Smith by gammons is intended to do just that, just as the complainant in England was intimidated into dropping allegations against Salmond. On here, I’ve had false allegations of standing as a Labour councillor, had comments made about my wife on Facebook, was threatened with revealing some non existent reason for retiring from my work and more. I would imagine that lot would have silenced some people. 

Yeah and you’ve also threatened to have your son “sort you out”. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Fudger said:

I guess this is the issue for all. how accurate are they and what makes them a true representation of the current make up. 

Defence is probably a good example of spend @ £3billion but if Scotland join Nato then our commitment won't be far off that. Also part of that £3billion cost creates considerable employment in Scotland, so it is a little disingenuous to say it should be much lower. 

Sorry but thats bollocks, our share of employment in defense has been decimated over the past 10 years, yet our share of spend. remains the same.

I also don't think its disengenous at all to say our costs would be lower.  Its fact.  To join Nato you'd need to promise to put 2% of GDP to defence (only thebUS actually does) and going by the GERS numbers that 2% is much less than 3.6bn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Beaker71 said:

Sorry but thats bollocks, our share of employment in defense has been decimated over the past 10 years, yet our share of spend. remains the same.

I also don't think its disengenous at all to say our costs would be lower.  Its fact.  To join Nato you'd need to promise to put 2% of GDP to defence (only thebUS actually does) and going by the GERS numbers that 2% is much less than 3.6bn

The NATO Partnership for peace and the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council are also available as alternatives to full NATO Membership. TBH a policy of military neutrality is quite appealing after being dragged into illegal wars by the U.K. & US. Let them get on with their empire building on their own. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...