Jump to content

Coalition


Shropshire_killie

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, gdevoy said:

People believe the truth that suits them.

 

1 hour ago, Zorro said:

I know you’re better than this. This response is like reading the back of a book and claiming to know the whole story. So just in case there’s a test, here’s a wee plot note. The U.K. government pays for HS2 by borrowing, around 10% of U.K. government borrowing is allocated to Scotland to pay towards the national debt, this is then used to show Scotland has a deficit, U.K. unionists pat themselves on the back at this jolly wheeze, the end. 

Correct …it’s called tribal epistemology  “.A state of mind where you believe not what facts or reason or top experts says is true , but what your group or tribe says is true “ 

I admit I got those figures from what you may call a unionist website I visited last night , but it was to point out how easy it is to mangle information to suit your argument .

The survey they used was commissioned by a pro union think tank “ These Islands” 
Im not so green as to believe that “official “ looking bit of paper is anything other than a put up job . If it was kosher it would have been all over the MSM .

I apologise for using Beakers post for this ? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bonbon19 said:

I admit I got those figures from what you may call a unionist website I visited last night , but it was to point out how easy it is to mangle information to suit your argument .

?

You can play exactly the same tunes with the case for independence. My own view is that it is very complicated and nobody really knows the real financial implications. It really depends on the terms of any agreement yet to be reached.

The only certainty for me is that rUK would be at a disadvantage without Scotland and it is disingenuous to suggest only Scotland would would be negatively impacted by independence. However this is the narative The Establishment are pedaling and the educationally challenged south of the border are only too happy to lap it up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/13/2021 at 3:24 PM, Mclean07 said:

Thank you for making the case for the UK. 103 million pounds each from the UK and the Scottish Government and 45 million from the three local authorities. A perfect example of stringer together. 

Very generous of the UK government. Big Ben repair  - £80m, New Royal Yacht- £250m, Repairs to Houses of Parliament - between £4bn and  £6bn.  Benefit to the people of Scotland -   £Nil. 

Stronger together, HS1 and HS2. Under construction in United Kingdom, well, England actually.

Edited by Wrangodog
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Wrangodog said:

Very generous of the UK government. Big Ben repair  - £80m, New Royal Yacht- £250m, Repairs to Houses of Parliament - between £4bn and  £6bn.  Benefit to the people of Scotland -   £Nil. 

Stronger together, HS1 and HS2. Under construction in United Kingdom, well, England actually.

I refuse to engage with the troll, he would tell you night was day if Labour said it was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Zorro said:

I know you’re better than this. This response is like reading the back of a book and claiming to know the whole story. So just in case there’s a test, here’s a wee plot note. The U.K. government pays for HS2 by borrowing, around 10% of U.K. government borrowing is allocated to Scotland to pay towards the national debt, this is then used to show Scotland has a deficit, U.K. unionists pat themselves on the back at this jolly wheeze, the end. 

I know you are better than this.

There is an omission from your plot note.

The allocation of debt is solely an accounting entry in GERS. I agree this increases the level of Scotland's deficit reported in GERS.

But under Barnett Consequentials, an equivalent amount, about 9.2% of the total cost of Hs2, is paid to Scotland in hard cash.

The Scottish Government can then choose to do what it wants with the extra cash, currently estimated to be over £10billion.

It's clumsy and it's not perfect, but it's not underhand or exploitative.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mackpomm said:

I know you are better than this.

There is an omission from your plot note.

The allocation of debt is solely an accounting entry in GERS. I agree this increases the level of Scotland's deficit reported in GERS.

But under Barnett Consequentials, an equivalent amount, about 9.2% of the total cost of Hs2, is paid to Scotland in hard cash.

The Scottish Government can then choose to do what it wants with the extra cash, currently estimated to be over £10billion.

It's clumsy and it's not perfect, but it's not underhand or exploitative.

 

On Barnett, I was reading an article written by a well respected individual (not necessarily on the Yes side), whinactually said that Barnetts original intended was actually to defund Scotland  and NOT to level things up, as there was much gnashing id teeth alongst southern MPs.

It was actually quite enlightening and shone some light on an area which was previously not known or even mentioned.

For the life of me now I cannot remember where i read rhe bloody thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Beaker71 said:

On Barnett, I was reading an article written by a well respected individual (not necessarily on the Yes side), whinactually said that Barnetts original intended was actually to defund Scotland  and NOT to level things up, as there was much gnashing id teeth alongst southern MPs.

It was actually quite enlightening and shone some light on an area which was previously not known or even mentioned.

For the life of me now I cannot remember where i read rhe bloody thing.

..... probably not the same source but gives a history. Seems originally Barnett created the conditions for a slow convergence of per capita expenditure in Scotland towards lower levels in England. But we found ways around this sneaky device!

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200809/ldselect/ldbarnett/139/13907.htm#a8

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, mackpomm said:

..... probably not the same source but gives a history. Seems originally Barnett created the conditions for a slow convergence of per capita expenditure in Scotland towards lower levels in England. But we found ways around this sneaky device!

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200809/ldselect/ldbarnett/139/13907.htm#a8

I think this demonstrates the WM approach to Scotland, they are always looking at ways to reduce the money which we get back from our tax revenue.  IMO for the last 50years at least WM has fundamentally worked to run Scotland down.  From the coal and heavy engineering industrial heartlands, to the closure of the Scottish Stock exchange, to the blatant theft of 3000sq miles of sea which included oil and gas fields.  Its all been designed to weaken the case for independence, which is bizarre given the constant too poor subsidy junky rhetoric were subjected to almost daily.

Something is amiss, we're either an economix basket case (because of mismanagement on the union) in which case the desire to keep us seems rather odd, even given the strategic defence benefits Scotland provides.  Or we are absolutely vital financially and from a defence perspective to the viability of England in which case the subsidy junky and treatment which is meted out to us which is pushing unionists from No to Yes, is even stranger still.

They do say the first casualty of war is the truth, and I guess the elite have been at war with Scotland and her people for a very long time.

Edited by Beaker71
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Bonbon19 said:

Didn’t Alex Salmond give his approval of the GERS figures at one point ? I’m convinced he used them as an indicator as to why Scotland could go it alone . 

Yes, the Scottish Government's own economic outlook in 2014 used GERS figures and included the statement:

Scotland accounted for 9.3% of UK public spending between 2008-09 and 2012-13, while generating 9.5% of tax receipts - it put in more than it got out. It suggests that tax receipts are currently 14% higher in Scotland than the rest of the UK.

These figures are quoted in the Guardian in May 2014. The source on the Scot Gov website has now, unsurprisingly, been removed.

But an update, looking at the last 5 fiscal periods, might be helpful?:

Scotland accounted for 9.2% of UK public spending between 2016-17 and 2020-21, while generating just 7.9% of tax receipts - it put in less than it got out. It suggests that tax receipts are currently 3.5% lower in Scotland than the rest of the UK.

Neither are the updated figures available on the government's website. In fact, there is no economic outlook at all.

It's difficult to know whether the SNP/Scottish Government regard these figures as helpful, or not. Or just sometimes!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Bonbon19 said:

Didn’t Alex Salmond give his approval of the GERS figures at one point ? I’m convinced he used them as an indicator as to why Scotland could go it alone . 

GERS, as has been said repeatedly, the methodology used to produce them is questionable at best (in accounting you would NEVER put expenditure before Revenue), they are wholly politically motivated and in the words of their creator Iain Lang, theyre ideal to show Scots it cannot possibly hope to manage itself.

The only remotely accurate part is the spend managed in Scotland, as this is controlled by the Scottish Government within the confines of the Scotland Act.  The rest incuding the revenue is an estimate if a guess which includes generalisations and random monies and spend being assigned on population share basis.

They are unfortunately the only set of figures available, as the WM government stopped providing data in the early 20th century as they were showing what a dteadful deal the smaller nations were getting (90% of scotlands revenue was retained for ahem Empire services!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Beaker71 said:

GERS, as has been said repeatedly, the methodology used to produce them is questionable at best (in accounting you would NEVER put expenditure before Revenue), they are wholly politically motivated and in the words of their creator Iain Lang, theyre ideal to show Scots it cannot possibly hope to manage itself.

The only remotely accurate part is the spend managed in Scotland, as this is controlled by the Scottish Government within the confines of the Scotland Act.  The rest incuding the revenue is an estimate if a guess which includes generalisations and random monies and spend being assigned on population share basis.

They are unfortunately the only set of figures available, as the WM government stopped providing data in the early 20th century as they were showing what a dteadful deal the smaller nations were getting (90% of scotlands revenue was retained for ahem Empire services!)

I wasn't aware that Lord Lang of Monkton made any such statement at any point in his career. Can you provide a source?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/17/2021 at 3:44 PM, Wrangodog said:

Svotlagd Very generous of the UK government. Big Ben repair  - £80m, New Royal Yacht- £250m, Repairs to Houses of Parliament - between £4bn and  £6bn.  Benefit to the people of Scotland -   £Nil. 

Stronger together, HS1 and HS2. Under construction in United Kingdom, well, England actually.

As I say, you clearly know nothing about Barnett consequentials. Scotland has the biggest budget in its history.  Brilliant stuff from @mackpomm. He’s ripping the nationalists to pieces with sheer logic, facts and knowledge. Great to see. 

Edited by Mclean07
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/17/2021 at 9:25 PM, Bonbon19 said:

Didn’t Alex Salmond give his approval of the GERS figures at one point ? I’m convinced he used them as an indicator as to why Scotland could go it alone . 

They were indeed the basis of the White Paper on independence and have been described by the SNP as the gold standard. No serious economic commentator or senior SNP politician disputes them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/17/2021 at 10:06 PM, mackpomm said:

I wasn't aware that Lord Lang of Monkton made any such statement at any point in his career. Can you provide a source?

It was a leaked memo when he was Secretary of State for Scotland, it said:

"I judge that [GERS] is just what is needed at present in our campaign to maintain the initiative and undermine the other parties. This initiative could score against all of them."

The calculation methodology has been updated since, but remain estimates rather than a direct reflection of reality.  The fact is with a disjointed and partially merged, partially devolved, partially decentralised tax system, attributed tax sources is impossible - companies and individuals working in Scotland (particularly in the financial and energy sectors) but tax registered in England & Wales will have tax misattributed and vice versa.  Similarly with public spending on non-devolved matters.

I think it's telling though that although the GERS methodology has been updated, no one else (including the Scottish Government or the SNP as a political party) have come up with a more viable recognised replacement for it.

However, as per my comments on the "Economics" thread, it's an argument over nothing.  These figures would only be valid if the Scottish economy was to bizarrely remain identical post-independence and wholly unaffected by independence - for good or ill there's simply no chance that will be the case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lorielus said:

It was a leaked memo when he was Secretary of State for Scotland, it said:

"I judge that [GERS] is just what is needed at present in our campaign to maintain the initiative and undermine the other parties. This initiative could score against all of them."

You have wonder what leaked memos will be circulating in future, about top Tories outflanking (and thinking) the Labour party in the run up to the 2014 referendum over their Better Together stance?
Amalgamating the ‘toxic’ Tory brand with the electorally historically massively successful Scottish Labour party, with the Tories reborn as the official Scottish opposition!

Labour supporters continue to chirp on about GERS, not understanding it’s function as a Tory tool to bash the other parties pro devo (and independence) stance. Langs 90s Tories were totally against devolution, a position thats a tiny tiny minority of people in Scotland now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lorielus said:

However, as per my comments on the "Economics" thread, it's an argument over nothing.  These figures would only be valid if the Scottish economy was to bizarrely remain identical post-independence and wholly unaffected by independence - for good or ill there's simply no chance that will be the case.

This with bells on. It is a totally meaningless arguament. 

In my view Independence would be a challenge for Scotland and rUK but quantifing the economics of independence is simply not possible. 

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...