How Would You Vote in IndyRef2?

[coconut doug]

9 minutes ago, JackLadd said:

Where is the SNP's independently costed case for overturning the No thanks vote in 2014 that remotely says Scotland could retain the same levels of public expenditure, taxation, employment and look after all the necessary start up costs of independence? Brent Crude is $70 a barrel today, the White Fantasy Paper in 2014 costed it at $114. If enough dunderheeds had voted aye 5 years ago what would have filled the £15bn per year hole in their budgeting forecast? Don't vote with your head seems to be the only message they have. 

When do you think the UK will be able to balance the books and start paying off the national debt. Are you expecting a Brexit bonus? What's the plan, is it keep on voting Tory and continue to reduce the level and standard of public services whilst giving tax cuts to the rich or should we vote for Labour and hope that something worthwhile emerges from their incoherence? What does your head say about these voting options? 

[SwindonJambo]

36 minutes ago, coconut doug said:

When do you think the UK will be able to balance the books and start paying off the national debt. Are you expecting a Brexit bonus? What's the plan, is it keep on voting Tory and continue to reduce the level and standard of public services whilst giving tax cuts to the rich or should we vote for Labour and hope that something worthwhile emerges from their incoherence? What does your head say about these voting options? 

 

I'm no Tory Voter but for 2018/19, the final deficit figure was about £23bn, a big reduction on recent years. Total National debt stands at £1.8tn appRox.  In reality very few governments ever pay off their debts. The important figure is national debt as a percentage of GDP,, which in the UK's case is finally falling slowly. As long as GDP grows faster than the debt, it generally means we're fine. Another unforeseen recession, and that all changes!

National Debts in most developed nations are at long term highs, but we're by no means the worst, or even close. Ours is around 83% of GDP.  France's is about 100% and Italy's 130%, both with similar populations to the UK's.

Edited May 7, 2019 by SwindonJambo

[AlphonseCapone]

1 hour ago, SwindonJambo said:

 

I'm no Tory Voter but for 2018/19, the final deficit figure was about £23bn, a big reduction on recent years. Total National debt stands at £1.8tn appRox.  In reality very few governments ever pay off their debts. The important figure is national debt as a percentage of GDP,, which in the UK's case is finally falling slowly. As long as GDP grows faster than the debt, it generally means we're fine. Another unforeseen recession, and that all changes!

National Debts in most developed nations are at long term highs, but we're by no means the worst, or even close. Ours is around 83% of GDP.  France's is about 100% and Italy's 130%, both with similar populations to the UK's.

 

You're not wrong. Which is why I find it interesting the financial expectation that unionists seem to have for an independent Scotland. "Scotland has debt and spends more than it makes, explain how this problem won't exist and thereby how Scotland would be an exception in the world".

 

Or explain how Scotland, a country whose economy wouldn't be based solely on oil, could possibly survive changes in oil prices, despite that other countries with economies based solely on oil have survived the volitility of prices.

 

Unionists expect detailed plans for independence but with the rule that Scotland can't operate like any other country in the world.

 

I really thought we were beyond the Scotland couldn't survive as an independent Scotland stuff. The Stockholm syndrome is so strong in people up here. 

 

None of this is aimed directly at you Swindon by the way, your post just prompted these thoughts. 

[ri Alban]

5 hours ago, Class of 75 said:

Each to their own. I could say the converse regarding the nonsense published by those in favour of independence 

Yet you voted leave. If Scotland is so shite, you'd want it to be in a bigger , more powerful, more equal union.

Edited May 7, 2019 by ri Alban

[Captain Sausage]

3 hours ago, AlphonseCapone said:

 

You're not wrong. Which is why I find it interesting the financial expectation that unionists seem to have for an independent Scotland. "Scotland has debt and spends more than it makes, explain how this problem won't exist and thereby how Scotland would be an exception in the world".

 

Or explain how Scotland, a country whose economy wouldn't be based solely on oil, could possibly survive changes in oil prices, despite that other countries with economies based solely on oil have survived the volitility of prices.

 

Unionists expect detailed plans for independence but with the rule that Scotland can't operate like any other country in the world.

 

I really thought we were beyond the Scotland couldn't survive as an independent Scotland stuff. The Stockholm syndrome is so strong in people up here. 

 

None of this is aimed directly at you Swindon by the way, your post just prompted these thoughts. 

 

Fee free to correct any of my below understandings:

- Scotland runs a budget deficit, currently topped up by rUK, of 8%.

- White paper ran estimates of oil at $110 per barrel, which equates to £9bn per year ‘black hole’. 

- The current budget is ~£36bn per annum. 

 

So that means that, just to retain the situation we have just now, we need about £3bn a year to just miracle itself out of nowhere.

 

Idealogically I’m not against independence, but it needs to be fiscally responsible, or at least transparent and honest. If the pro-independence movement would acknowledge that the ‘short term’ pain is actually very significant, it would help make discussions more frank and honest instead of warping statistics to fit their narrative. 

 

The whole anti-no diatribe about how negative they are is a misnomer. People inherently don’t want to be negatively impacted by their choices. Independence WILL make people worse off - it’s a bit like Brexit in that everything points to us being negatively impacted financially. 

 

There is also a significant risk that well off no voters will just up sticks and move to England which would further deteriorate the fiscal situation. 

[frankblack]

7 hours ago, coconut doug said:

I don't think so. I think it is you that doesn't understand. I've read some of your link and stand by what i have said.

 

Just to remind you here is what you said "You need to address the issues discussed above about setting up a central bank that can cover the national debt and any crisis situation" my response to that was "Central banks do not cover national debts. Debts are managed." There is nothing in your link that refutes the point i made as far as i can see but if there is i will be happy to admit that i did not understand the role of central banks.  

   You seemed to think i did not understand what lender of last resort means. Of course i did that's why i refuted your notion that the RBS could be Scotland's central bank. 

 

 After having read your own link, do you still think "Central banks cover the national debt"? 

 

To lift directly from the article, which was the first I found, Central banks support the currency, money supply, interest rates of a state and oversee their commercial banking system.

 

As I understand it, they are a lender of last resort and would guarantee banking debts in a time of crisis to creditors.  However they need the liquidity to do so.  I do accept I was inaccurate on the part about covering the national debt directly but they would cover the debts of the financial institutions underpinning the economy.

 

I really can't see how an independent Scotland could set up and ensure liquidity for a central bank to cover its currency and our institutions like RBS while managing inherited national debt.

[ri Alban]

54 minutes ago, Captain Sausage said:

 

Fee free to correct any of my below understandings:

- Scotland runs a budget deficit, currently topped up by rUK, of 8%.

- White paper ran estimates of oil at $110 per barrel, which equates to £9bn per year ‘black hole’. 

- The current budget is ~£36bn per annum. 

 

So that means that, just to retain the situation we have just now, we need about £3bn a year to just miracle itself out of nowhere.

 

Idealogically I’m not against independence, but it needs to be fiscally responsible, or at least transparent and honest. If the pro-independence movement would acknowledge that the ‘short term’ pain is actually very significant, it would help make discussions more frank and honest instead of warping statistics to fit their narrative. 

 

The whole anti-no diatribe about how negative they are is a misnomer. People inherently don’t want to be negatively impacted by their choices. Independence WILL make people worse off - it’s a bit like Brexit in that everything points to us being negatively impacted financially. 

 

There is also a significant risk that well off no voters will just up sticks and move to England which would further deteriorate the fiscal situation. 

Scotland brings in £70b, so tell me, who exactly over spends and on what?

[SwindonJambo]

4 hours ago, AlphonseCapone said:

 

You're not wrong. Which is why I find it interesting the financial expectation that unionists seem to have for an independent Scotland. "Scotland has debt and spends more than it makes, explain how this problem won't exist and thereby how Scotland would be an exception in the world".

 

Or explain how Scotland, a country whose economy wouldn't be based solely on oil, could possibly survive changes in oil prices, despite that other countries with economies based solely on oil have survived the volitility of prices.

 

Unionists expect detailed plans for independence but with the rule that Scotland can't operate like any other country in the world.

 

I really thought we were beyond the Scotland couldn't survive as an independent Scotland stuff. The Stockholm syndrome is so strong in people up here. 

 

None of this is aimed directly at you Swindon by the way, your post just prompted these thoughts. 

 

See my previous post AC. I'm quite open minded and objective about it all. Lots of stereotyping and labelling along the lines of 'a typical unionist' or 'a typical nationalist' around.

 

Of course Scotland has no specific debt. It has a notional share of UK Debt. It certainly has a structural deficit so if it walked away from rUK with no debt, it would a accumulate one of its own if left unaddressed. It would however be free to make its own tax and spend decisions to address this.

 

Scotland has a large public sector and, unfortunately a state dependency culture in a lot of areas, especially I'm ashamed to say, in my native West. However, if the first independent government had the balls to address these issues with the required tough decisions, I think longer term, Scotland would do fine, after a tough initial transitional period. It certainly isn't too wee or too stupid.

 

I think the proposed new policy on currency is sensible.

 

[Captain Sausage]

19 minutes ago, ri Alban said:

Scotland brings in £70b, so tell me, who exactly over spends and on what?

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-28879267

 

So this article is a bit out of date, but shows the following:

 

For 2012/13:

Scotland contributed £53bn (could be as low as £48 depending on oil allocation) which is higher than the UK average. 

 

Scotland received £65bn for total public spending, higher than the UK average. 

 

This leaves Scotland with a £12bn deficit (requiring additional 22% contribution). 

 

Given the UK runs a £117bn deficit, £12bn doesn’t sound too bad. But when you break it up per capita, it works out at an extra 15% per capita deficit. 

 

That 15% needs to be made up from somewhere, just to keep things as they are today. I just don’t understand how that plays out. 

 

Its not exactly a leap to suggest our contributions will be reduced when we export £45bn a year to rUK and we go independent (new currency etc) so that 15% will rise (to where, I don’t know). Consideration should also be given our debt facilities and how we’d likely be charged higher rates due to a lack of payment histories. 

Edited May 7, 2019 by Captain Sausage

[ri Alban]

2 minutes ago, Captain Sausage said:

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-28879267

 

So this article is a bit out of date, but shows the following:

 

For 2012/13:

Scotland contributed £53bn (could be as low as £48 depending on oil allocation) which is higher than the UK average. 

 

Scotland received £65bn for total public spending, higher than the UK average. 

 

This leaves Scotland with a £12bn deficit (requiring additional 22% contribution). 

 

Given the UK runs a £117bn deficit, £12bn doesn’t sound too bad. But when you break it up per capita, it works out at an extra 15% per capita deficit. 

 

That 15% needs to be made up from somewhere, just to keep things as they are today. I just don’t understand how that plays out. 

 

Its not exactly a leap to suggest our contributions will be reduced when we export £45bn a year to rUK and we go independent (new currency etc) so that 15% will rise (to where, I don’t know). Consideration should also be given our debt facilities and how we’d likely be charged higher rates due to a lack of payment histories. 

Why would Scotland with natural resources bigger than Norway be charged higher. Will London be charged higher, considering they've just lost an big asset and are also a new state outside the EU altogether.  Naw, and Scotland will be just fine, saving billions outside the UK on wars, nukes, HS2,3, 4 etc... Heathrow, more war. And since the border will be realigned, 98% of oil and gas fields with trillions in assets. Oh and with a global emergency, our renewable sector, the biggest in Europe (Funny how having the biggest assets of natural resources in Europe, is shite), we'll be the Arabs of the North.

 

Naw , I forgot, we're shite!

[Captain Sausage]

2 minutes ago, ri Alban said:

Why would Scotland with natural resources bigger than Norway be charged higher. Will London be charged higher, considering they've just lost an big asset and are also a new state outside the EU altogether.  Naw, and Scotland will be just fine, saving billions outside the UK on wars, nukes, HS2,3, 4 etc... Heathrow, more war. And since the border will be realigned, 98% of oil and gas fields with trillions in assets. Oh and with a global emergency, our renewable sector, the biggest in Europe (Funny how having the biggest assets of natural resources in Europe, is shite), we'll be the Arabs of the North.

 

Naw , I forgot, we're shite!

 

Going straight on the defensive is absolutely pointless. 

 

Scotland will have no track record as an independent country of debt repayment, so it’ll attract higher interest payments. That’s pretty categorical. 

 

Absolutely Scotland has the potential for massive renewable scale up, but who is paying for it? Companies can only support development with government subsidies, are a smaller Scottish government in a position to cover these costs without increasing the deficit? I’m not aware that that is a possibility. 

 

It’s a good point that a smaller defence budget will make things better, but transportation is probably not going to be cheaper. Relatively we have a significant transportation infrastructure to support, including Highlands and Islands ferry’s/flights, 2 major airports and many more dotted around the country, etc. 

 

The oil and gas assets are a big red herring. Even the government funded growth commission has oil revenues in as a bonus, because the tax relief required to make those barrels economic to pursue means the tax take is negligible. 

 

You are firing out a whole raft of soundbites with little to no substance. Your argument seems to be ‘I’m louder than you so I’m right’. And also to go straight to the ‘too wee, too poor, too stupid’ (absolutely chronic chat by the way). 

 

Instead of just shouting ting things that kinda sound like they might be good, why not engage and debate cohesively. The people out there who will win you your independence need to be convinced of the merits. Your arguments do very little in that regard. 

[ri Alban]

7 minutes ago, Captain Sausage said:

 

Going straight on the defensive is absolutely pointless. 

 

Scotland will have no track record as an independent country of debt repayment, so it’ll attract higher interest payments. That’s pretty categorical. 

 

Absolutely Scotland has the potential for massive renewable scale up, but who is paying for it? Companies can only support development with government subsidies, are a smaller Scottish government in a position to cover these costs without increasing the deficit? I’m not aware that that is a possibility. 

 

It’s a good point that a smaller defence budget will make things better, but transportation is probably not going to be cheaper. Relatively we have a significant transportation infrastructure to support, including Highlands and Islands ferry’s/flights, 2 major airports and many more dotted around the country, etc. 

 

The oil and gas assets are a big red herring. Even the government funded growth commission has oil revenues in as a bonus, because the tax relief required to make those barrels economic to pursue means the tax take is negligible. 

 

You are firing out a whole raft of soundbites with little to no substance. Your argument seems to be ‘I’m louder than you so I’m right’. And also to go straight to the ‘too wee, too poor, too stupid’ (absolutely chronic chat by the way). 

 

Instead of just shouting ting things that kinda sound like they might be good, why not engage and debate cohesively. The people out there who will win you your independence need to be convinced of the merits. Your arguments do very little in that regard. 

I'll get back to you bud. I need to go out and work in the rain. ?

[Captain Sausage]

4 minutes ago, ri Alban said:

I'll get back to you bud. I need to go out and work in the rain. ?

 

[Jambo-Jimbo]

8 hours ago, coconut doug said:

It's funny they never noticed it at the time. Were they not paying attention? Maybe it was just a story designed to prevent a run on the pound. seriously do you honestly believe the pound was overvalued by as much as 20% and nobody in the financial world spotted it until afterwards? Are these people not paid extremely well for their financial acumen? 

   Do you not think that the devaluation of the pound immediately after the Brexit vote was a consequence of the vote? Maybe you think that the hedge fund managers who made billions on the drop in the pound's value just got lucky? 

 

The IMF was reporting in 2014 and then again in 2015 that the pound was overvalued, this was at least two years before the brexit vote, so why do you keep insisting that nobody noticed until afterwards (afterwards meaning what exactly, the brexit vote or that the pound was overvalued?) if it's the latter then the following might help you.

 

In July 2011 the IMF said that the pound was 'fairly valued' now if that were the case then it's overvalue must have started after 2011 (agreed?) and by 2014 the IMF was starting to put out concerns about the pound being overvalued, so far from nobody noticing that the pound was being overvalued, I think they were fairly quick on the ball here because the overvalue isn't going to have happened overnight it would have taken many many months maybe even a couple of years for it to start to raise alarm bells, the IMF went from an assessment in 2011 of the pound being 'fairly valued' to starting to raise concerns in 2014 about the pound being overvalued, that's period of only 3 years, from everything being ok to hold on what's going on here.

'The IMF, which does such calculations, reported on February 24, 2016 that the British pound was “overvalued” by possibly 15 per cent, up from fairly valued in 2011.' 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/comment/why-the-plummeting-pound-sterling-is-good-news-for-britain-a7353846.html

If you click on the fairly valued it opens up the IMF report from 2011.

 

Here is the report from the Financial Times from July 2014 reporting the IMF's warnings about the pounds overvalue.

https://www.ft.com/content/ec6bef86-1653-11e4-8210-00144feabdc0

 

As for the reasons why the pound was overvalued or was even allowed to be, well I think you'd be better asking George Osborne & the Governor of the BoE that question, I think they're the people who would know more about that then I do.

 

Edited May 7, 2019 by Jambo-Jimbo

[Roxy Hearts]

Anybody with an ounce of savvy knows that the pound is a petrocurrency based on Scottish oil. UK has nothing else. Sick of decades of lies about Scottish oil, it's the only commodity that has kept the UK afloat and built London. 

[Justin Z]

11 hours ago, Class of 75 said:

Becsuse the Bank of England will not permit Scotland to use Sterling and the setting up of any independent Scottish Bank will cost millions. A new Scottish currency will be worth next to nothing as there will be nothing to back it up with the country running a fiscal defecit.

 

Whether true or not, there is nothing stopping an independent Scotland from pegging its own currency to sterling for as long as it wishes, which 90+ countries do to the dollar and euro.

[Captain Sausage]

14 minutes ago, Roxy Hearts said:

Anybody with an ounce of savvy knows that the pound is a petrocurrency based on Scottish oil. UK has nothing else. Sick of decades of lies about Scottish oil, it's the only commodity that has kept the UK afloat and built London. 

 

Scottish oil totalled £20bn in 2018. That’s worth £8bn to the UK economy. 

 

Total UK public spending was £817bn for 2018. That means oil accounts for <1%. 

 

Sick of absolute nonsense propaganda on both sides of the independence debate. Do some independent thinking and research. 

[ri Alban]

6 minutes ago, Captain Sausage said:

 

Scottish oil totalled £20bn in 2018. That’s worth £8bn to the UK economy. 

 

Total UK public spending was £817bn for 2018. That means oil accounts for <1%. 

 

Sick of absolute nonsense propaganda on both sides of the independence debate. Do some independent thinking and research. 

I do.  That's why I know we spend £11000+ per head on the English/rUK economy, compared to just £900+ from them. Anyway, back to the nice refreshing rain. I'll enjoy it before it too runs out.

[Roxy Hearts]

20 minutes ago, Captain Sausage said:

 

Scottish oil totalled £20bn in 2018. That’s worth £8bn to the UK economy. 

 

Total UK public spending was £817bn for 2018. That means oil accounts for <1%. 

 

Sick of absolute nonsense propaganda on both sides of the independence debate. Do some independent thinking and research. 

Aye right! Where do these figures come from? Propaganda of the British state to reflect badly on Scotland is for the naive and gullible. There is billions left in the North Sea and it's Scottish. I don't believe in any figures from UK sources. 

[jake]

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=i&source=web&cd=&ved=0ahUKEwjp0tT3jIniAhUNmRoKHe_bDjYQzPwBCAM&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fbusiness%2F2014%2Faug%2F21%2Fscottish-independence-pound-thinktank-thrive-currency&psig=AOvVaw0AGX_e_a7HpHL2_ukd57LT&ust=1557307574900061 

 

Might not be to everyone's taste the Adam Smith institute but they have published quite a few positive articles regarding an independent Scotlands economic future.

 

Scotland can use the dollar if it wanted to and without a central bank.

Our economy would be valued on its actual worth.

Edited May 7, 2019 by jake

[Captain Sausage]

15 minutes ago, Roxy Hearts said:

Aye right! Where do these figures come from? Propaganda of the British state to reflect badly on Scotland is for the naive and gullible. There is billions left in the North Sea and it's Scottish. I don't believe in any figures from UK sources. 

 

I’m sorry, but you can’t just ignore figures because they don’t give you the answer you want. Absolutely moronic behaviour. 

 

Sources below:

https://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/government_expenditure.html

 

https://www.energyvoice.com/oilandgas/north-sea/181446/scotlands-oil-and-gas-sales-up-to-20billion-says-scot-gov-report/

 

32 minutes ago, ri Alban said:

I do.  That's why I know we spend £11000+ per head on the English/rUK economy, compared to just £900+ from them. Anyway, back to the nice refreshing rain. I'll enjoy it before it too runs out.

 

Where is the source for that? Source below states £12800 per person expenditure, with £10000 per person collected for 2015/16. That compares with rUK figures of £11500 and £10400 respectively. 

 

That means the net ‘cost’ per capita for rUK is £1100 and for Scotland it is £2800. 

 

That is beyond calculating errors and into the place that the independence movement needs to accept it and own this information. 

 

https://fullfact.org/economy/tax-and-spending-scotland/

[ri Alban]

1 hour ago, Captain Sausage said:

 

I’m sorry, but you can’t just ignore figures because they don’t give you the answer you want. Absolutely moronic behaviour. 

 

Sources below:

https://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/government_expenditure.html

 

https://www.energyvoice.com/oilandgas/north-sea/181446/scotlands-oil-and-gas-sales-up-to-20billion-says-scot-gov-report/

 

 

Where is the source for that? Source below states £12800 per person expenditure, with £10000 per person collected for 2015/16. That compares with rUK figures of £11500 and £10400 respectively. 

 

That means the net ‘cost’ per capita for rUK is £1100 and for Scotland it is £2800. 

 

That is beyond calculating errors and into the place that the independence movement needs to accept it and own this information. 

 

https://fullfact.org/economy/tax-and-spending-scotland/

Source is we are small country of 5m who spend close to 15 billion more on a 3 countries with a population of near 60m.

 

60m spend £50b 

5.4m spend £65  b

I'm stuck out in the rain, I'm sure you can find the exact figures. Ask Andrew Neil, he admitted on politics live last year. But hey... Tiny wee helpless Scotland.

 

 

Btw. How much money does the oil bring in fuel duty, or tarmac manufacturing etc... And all the workers and companies must pay a good bit tax. Natural gas? Does that not make electricity ,etc... Aye 1% of the economy.

[ri Alban]

1 hour ago, Captain Sausage said:

 

I’m sorry, but you can’t just ignore figures because they don’t give you the answer you want. Absolutely moronic behaviour. 

 

Sources below:

https://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/government_expenditure.html

 

https://www.energyvoice.com/oilandgas/north-sea/181446/scotlands-oil-and-gas-sales-up-to-20billion-says-scot-gov-report/

 

 

Where is the source for that? Source below states £12800 per person expenditure, with £10000 per person collected for 2015/16. That compares with rUK figures of £11500 and £10400 respectively. 

 

That means the net ‘cost’ per capita for rUK is £1100 and for Scotland it is £2800. 

 

That is beyond calculating errors and into the place that the independence movement needs to accept it and own this information. 

 

https://fullfact.org/economy/tax-and-spending-scotland/

I'm talking total spend on each other. Scotland makes up 16% of England's economy. Second only to the USA. Yes the EU as a whole is number one. But Germany is 3rd on 8%.

 

GDP $250b Scotland

GDP £2.1t UK

Is that 12.5% from 8.9% of the population. Aye we're definitely shite.

 

Most of our imaginary deficit is UK spent on things we don't use. Coat cutting from the Wm elite would be a good start.

I've added Wales and NI population, so the per head is a wee bit better for your union.

Edited May 7, 2019 by ri Alban

[ri Alban]

20 minutes ago, ri Alban said:

I'm talking total spend on each other. Scotland makes up 16% of England's economy. Second only to the USA. Yes the EU as a whole is number one. But Germany is 3rd on 8%.

 

GDP $250b Scotland

GDP £2.1t UK

Is that 12.5% from 8.9% of the population. Aye we're definitely shite.

 

Most of our imaginary deficit is UK spent on things we don't use. Coat cutting from the Wm elite would be a good start.

I've added Wales and NI population, so the per head is a wee bit better for your union.

Sorry it's 10% GDP to 8% populations. Anyway I'll adjust my figures later. I'm fecking getting soaked. 

[Captain Sausage]

15 minutes ago, ri Alban said:

Sorry it's 10% GDP to 8% populations. Anyway I'll adjust my figures later. I'm fecking getting soaked. 

 

Please do. Not sure where your source is and why there would be such a disparity with fullfact, an independent charity formed to provide transparent answers on a whole plethora of topics. 

[Unknown user]

2 hours ago, Captain Sausage said:

 

I’m sorry, but you can’t just ignore figures because they don’t give you the answer you want. Absolutely moronic behaviour. 

 

Sources below:

https://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/government_expenditure.html

 

https://www.energyvoice.com/oilandgas/north-sea/181446/scotlands-oil-and-gas-sales-up-to-20billion-says-scot-gov-report/

 

 

Where is the source for that? Source below states £12800 per person expenditure, with £10000 per person collected for 2015/16. That compares with rUK figures of £11500 and £10400 respectively. 

 

That means the net ‘cost’ per capita for rUK is £1100 and for Scotland it is £2800. 

 

That is beyond calculating errors and into the place that the independence movement needs to accept it and own this information. 

 

https://fullfact.org/economy/tax-and-spending-scotland/

 

It's not as black and white as that, part of that figure is unspecified devolved spending, the amount they add as Scotland's share of UK stuff. But we could be doing these things differently with lower costs, the welfare state could cost less per head, the defence budget could have trident removed, or maybe the project shared with Scotland charging rent for keeping the damned things up here. 

I can't accept that Westminster has the best, most efficient system set up for Scotland's needs, they couldn't find their own arseholes!

 

Like most things there's a lot of grey area and a lot of unknowns, but for me it simply comes down to whether you think we could do it better than Westminster.

[ri Alban]

31 minutes ago, Captain Sausage said:

 

Please do. Not sure where your source is and why there would be such a disparity with fullfact, an independent charity formed to provide transparent answers on a whole plethora of topics. 

Sorry, exports is my gist.

 

Scotland exports 48 b(60%) to England England exports 65 b (14.5)to Scotland. We are number one destination. Funny how we can find Scottish figures, but not English. I wonder!?

[Captain Sausage]

50 minutes ago, Smithee said:

 

It's not as black and white as that, part of that figure is unspecified devolved spending, the amount they add as Scotland's share of UK stuff. But we could be doing these things differently with lower costs, the welfare state could cost less per head, the defence budget could have trident removed, or maybe the project shared with Scotland charging rent for keeping the damned things up here. 

I can't accept that Westminster has the best, most efficient system set up for Scotland's needs, they couldn't find their own arseholes!

 

Like most things there's a lot of grey area and a lot of unknowns, but for me it simply comes down to whether you think we could do it better than Westminster.

 

Absolutely agree Smithee. I can only comprehend the direct comparisons until we have better information. 

 

Can Scotland do it better than Westminster? I’d turn it on it’s head and ask if they can do worse...

 

There is a lot of fat which can be trimmed away, however at the core of it Scotland is a public sector heavy country. The public sector relies on private industries to provide it with money (in most cases) and that is reflected in the figures I’ve posted above. 

 

It’d be interesting to see if you stripped away defence, our share of WM (assume all Scot gov funding is given as part of the block?) and see where we’d stand. It’s crude, but might give us an insight. 

 

You’d have to factor in higher debt repayment figures, large CAPEX one offs etc, but I’d be lying if I said I knew how that pans out. My best guess is Scotland would still be worse off, and the lack of SNP voice on fiscal matters suggests they’ve run the numbers and come to that exact conclusion. 

[Cade]

Folk STILL arguing "IF" Scotland could survive as an independent nation.

 

Of course it could. Scotland is a developed, modern, industrialised, well-educated, democratic western nation.
Due to the way economics works, sometimes it'll be doing better than the UK, sometimes it'll not be doing as well as the UK.

But that's the same for every nation on earth.

 

The questions is "SHOULD" Scotland be independent.

[Unknown user]

1 minute ago, Captain Sausage said:

 

Absolutely agree Smithee. I can only comprehend the direct comparisons until we have better information. 

 

Can Scotland do it better than Westminster? I’d turn it on it’s head and ask if they can do worse...

 

There is a lot of fat which can be trimmed away, however at the core of it Scotland is a public sector heavy country. The public sector relies on private industries to provide it with money (in most cases) and that is reflected in the figures I’ve posted above. 

 

It’d be interesting to see if you stripped away defence, our share of WM (assume all Scot gov funding is given as part of the block?) and see where we’d stand. It’s crude, but might give us an insight. 

 

You’d have to factor in higher debt repayment figures, large CAPEX one offs etc, but I’d be lying if I said I knew how that pans out. My best guess is Scotland would still be worse off, and the lack of SNP voice on fiscal matters suggests they’ve run the numbers and come to that exact conclusion. 

For my part I really wish the SNP weren't at the heart of the debate, they really don't represent my thinking despite my being an overall supporter of independence. A big mistake in the debate is that it focuses on the SNP's vision of how independence works, when in reality a post independence Scotland wouldn't be run by them - they're a mish mash of different views based round one basic principle, and once that one central battle is won they all have little in common and are a schism waiting to happen. 

I've voted for them in the past, but not exclusively, and there's very little chance I'd vote for them after independence, if they still existed. 

 

Unfortunately I don't have the brains, knowledge or expertise needed to have all the answers, but I do believe that a government set up to deal solely with Scotland's challenges would be inherently better than one set up to suit a much bigger area, one that isn't a lot like Scotland for the most part.

[Roxy Hearts]

3 hours ago, Captain Sausage said:

 

I’m sorry, but you can’t just ignore figures because they don’t give you the answer you want. Absolutely moronic behaviour. 

 

Sources below:

https://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/government_expenditure.html

 

https://www.energyvoice.com/oilandgas/north-sea/181446/scotlands-oil-and-gas-sales-up-to-20billion-says-scot-gov-report/

 

 

Where is the source for that? Source below states £12800 per person expenditure, with £10000 per person collected for 2015/16. That compares with rUK figures of £11500 and £10400 respectively. 

 

That means the net ‘cost’ per capita for rUK is £1100 and for Scotland it is £2800. 

 

That is beyond calculating errors and into the place that the independence movement needs to accept it and own this information. 

 

https://fullfact.org/economy/tax-and-spending-scotland/

I don't trust figures from UK sources and why should I? It's not moronic behaviour to suggest that there is more oil in the North Sea or that's there more being produced than the stinking UK states there is. I suppose I'm meant to believe we have a 15bn defecit because of GERS, nonsense! 

[Captain Sausage]

21 minutes ago, Roxy Hearts said:

I don't trust figures from UK sources and why should I? It's not moronic behaviour to suggest that there is more oil in the North Sea or that's there more being produced than the stinking UK states there is. I suppose I'm meant to believe we have a 15bn defecit because of GERS, nonsense! 

 

So, to clarify, you believe there are more recoverable reserves than publicly listed companies and the OGA are letting on? And there are either stealth platforms in the North Sea with their own stealth pipelines and a stealth terminal somewhere, or all of the companies are in cahoots and deliberately understating their metering throughput? What is the end game there - to make Scotland look like it can’t go independent?!

[JimKongUno]

29 minutes ago, Cade said:

Folk STILL arguing "IF" Scotland could survive as an independent nation.

 

Of course it could. Scotland is a developed, modern, industrialised, well-educated, democratic western nation.
Due to the way economics works, sometimes it'll be doing better than the UK, sometimes it'll not be doing as well as the UK.

But that's the same for every nation on earth.

 

The questions is "SHOULD" Scotland be independent.

 

Correct

Scotland could and should do well as an independent nation . The currency could and should do well .. if the right people were running the show . The fear for me is Sturgeon and co making an utter shop front of things and leaving us destitute .

[Roxy Hearts]

1 minute ago, Captain Sausage said:

 

So, to clarify, you believe there are more recoverable reserves than publicly listed companies and the OGA are letting on? And there are either stealth platforms in the North Sea with their own stealth pipelines and a stealth terminal somewhere, or all of the companies are in cahoots and deliberately understating their metering throughput? What is the end game there - to make Scotland look like it can’t go independent?!

I don't trust companies who act on behalf of the state. I will let you make your own mind up. Do you honestly think we can't be independent and successful and that if we did the books would be full of surprises? 

[Roxy Hearts]

1 minute ago, JimKongUno said:

 

Correct

Scotland could and should do well as an independent nation . The currency could and should do well .. if the right people were running the show . The fear for me is Sturgeon and co making an utter shop front of things and leaving us destitute .

There would be a Scottish general election so we could choose our own government with the policies that suit us and that's the point. 

[Captain Sausage]

11 minutes ago, Roxy Hearts said:

I don't trust companies who act on behalf of the state. I will let you make your own mind up. Do you honestly think we can't be independent and successful and that if we did the books would be full of surprises? 

 

I have absolutely no doubts that Scotland would do fine as an independent nation. 

 

But it I don’t think it would be as well off as it is now, that there would need to be public sector cuts and probably tax rises. Everyone would be worse off than they are now as a result. But people would survive, just with a slightly lower quality of life.  

 

To the point on companies acting on behalf of the state - private exploration/downstream companies act on behalf of their shareholders, not the state. It actually blows my mind that anyone would consider there to be a conspiracy against Scottish nationalism around a North Sea oil throughout. 

[Roxy Hearts]

12 minutes ago, Captain Sausage said:

 

I have absolutely no doubts that Scotland would do fine as an independent nation. 

 

But it I don’t think it would be as well off as it is now, that there would need to be public sector cuts and probably tax rises. Everyone would be worse off than they are now as a result. But people would survive, just with a slightly lower quality of life.  

 

To the point on companies acting on behalf of the state - private exploration/downstream companies act on behalf of their shareholders, not the state. It actually blows my mind that anyone would consider there to be a conspiracy against Scottish nationalism around a North Sea oil throughout. 

Fair enough but as I stated earlier I don't trust the UK state to be telling us the whole truth about our assets hence your negative prognosis. I do mistrust some companies and as for shareholders, well they sip with the devil at times. 

[SE16 3LN]

26 minutes ago, Roxy Hearts said:

I don't trust figures from UK sources and why should I? It's not moronic behaviour to suggest that there is more oil in the North Sea or that's there more being produced than the stinking UK states there is. I suppose I'm meant to believe we have a 15bn defecit because of GERS, nonsense! 

? 

[Hugh Phamism]

28 minutes ago, Captain Sausage said:

 

I have absolutely no doubts that Scotland would do fine as an independent nation. 

 

But it I don’t think it would be as well off as it is now, that there would need to be public sector cuts and probably tax rises. Everyone would be worse off than they are now as a result. But people would survive, just with a slightly lower quality of life.  

 

To the point on companies acting on behalf of the state - private exploration/downstream companies act on behalf of their shareholders, not the state. It actually blows my mind that anyone would consider there to be a conspiracy against Scottish nationalism around a North Sea oil throughout. 

 

You haven't read the McCrone report then?

[Roxy Hearts]

4 minutes ago, SE16 3LN said:

?

Sinking UK too! 

[Captain Sausage]

5 minutes ago, Hugh Phamism said:

 

You haven't read the McCrone report then?

 

A totally different thing. That’s a politicised document aiming to undermine independence, this discussion is around oil companies deliberately under reporting their oil throughput. 

[Roxy Hearts]

4 minutes ago, Captain Sausage said:

 

A totally different thing. That’s a politicised document aiming to undermine independence, this discussion is around oil companies deliberately under reporting their oil throughput. 

There are issues with companies and politics as we all know. Lobbyists, Sirs, Lords etc. The UK state is sham as far as democracy in concerned. 

[Pans Jambo]

15 hours ago, Captain Sausage said:

 

Fee free to correct any of my below understandings:

- Scotland runs a budget deficit, currently topped up by rUK, of 8%.

- White paper ran estimates of oil at $110 per barrel, which equates to £9bn per year ‘black hole’. 

- The current budget is ~£36bn per annum. 

 

So that means that, just to retain the situation we have just now, we need about £3bn a year to just miracle itself out of nowhere.

 

Idealogically I’m not against independence, but it needs to be fiscally responsible, or at least transparent and honest. If the pro-independence movement would acknowledge that the ‘short term’ pain is actually very significant, it would help make discussions more frank and honest instead of warping statistics to fit their narrative. 

 

The whole anti-no diatribe about how negative they are is a misnomer. People inherently don’t want to be negatively impacted by their choices. Independence WILL make people worse off - it’s a bit like Brexit in that everything points to us being negatively impacted financially. 

 

There is also a significant risk that well off no voters will just up sticks and move to England which would further deteriorate the fiscal situation. 

Your post was well thought out and made but FFS mate! Your last paragraph is just a laughable piece of fiction with zero basis. 

 

Well off No voters ?

[ri Alban]

7 hours ago, Pans Jambo said:

Your post was well thought out and made but FFS mate! Your last paragraph is just a laughable piece of fiction with zero basis. 

 

Well off No voters ?

Nae mention of remainers from the UK moving here post indy, because of brexit.

[Hasselhoff]

15 hours ago, Captain Sausage said:

 

I have absolutely no doubts that Scotland would do fine as an independent nation. 

 

But it I don’t think it would be as well off as it is now, that there would need to be public sector cuts and probably tax rises. Everyone would be worse off than they are now as a result. But people would survive, just with a slightly lower quality of life.  

 

My sentiments exactly. I'm sure we could be independent and do alright but it would be less prosperous than the situation we have right now as part of the UK.

 

If the nationalists want to win the argument, the onus is on them to prove that we would be better off independent. The claim in the White Paper that it would cost £200m to set up the infrastructure for an indy Scotland was laughable and discredits any fiscal analysis they come out with. 

 

 

 

 

[coconut doug]

On 08/05/2019 at 06:52, Hasselhoff said:

 

My sentiments exactly. I'm sure we could be independent and do alright but it would be less prosperous than the situation we have right now as part of the UK.

 

If the nationalists want to win the argument, the onus is on them to prove that we would be better off independent. The claim in the White Paper that it would cost £200m to set up the infrastructure for an indy Scotland was laughable and discredits any fiscal analysis they come out with. 

 

 

 

 

If indy supporters want to win they must convince 50% +1 of Those who vote. According to the most recent poll we are at 49%. 

How much do you think it will take to set up the infrastructure for Indy , what will it be spent on and what is your source?

 

More importantly why are you content deny Scotland's right to exist for a few pounds of income (in your eyes anyway).  The term nationalist is not accurate, have you not understood that for Indy supporters the aspiration is internationalism with Scotland being one of the nations in a multinational partnership i.e. the EU.

 

The term nationalist is best kept for Farage, Ukip and the Tories who think they can resurrect the empire. 

 

You clearly have very little affinity with the notion of being Scottish if you are prepared to deny it for a few pounds and put your faith in Gers figures. 

 

 

[Jambo-Jimbo]

On 08/05/2019 at 06:21, ri Alban said:

Nae mention of remainers from the UK moving here post indy, because of brexit.

 

Don't know about them being remainers or not, but there is plenty of people from England moving up here already as it is.

[Mikey1874]

Curious the SNP independence supporting Scottish Government has turned down taking on half of VAT revenues.

 

Something about us being better off being part of UK.

 

Maybe a new strategy to keep the status quo. 

[Cade]

The VAT thing is half-ersed at best.

 

Scottish govt will have no control over VAT rates.

VAT revenues transferred to the Scottish govt will be estimates and not actual figures.

 

Unless the figures are real and not based on estimates, the whole thing is pointless and too much of a risk.

[Mikey1874]

5 minutes ago, Cade said:

The VAT thing is half-ersed at best.

 

Scottish govt will have no control over VAT rates.

VAT revenues transferred to the Scottish govt will be estimates and not actual figures.

 

Unless the figures are real and not based on estimates, the whole thing is pointless and too much of a risk.

 

Like Independence then.

 

You are right about the details. But then how will that apply to everything else? Will the same detailed analysis difficult to properly pin down partly due to the need for more information and data take a long time apply to every other power and financial matter? Before or after people vote. 

 

Because Independence sounds awfully easy until you get to the detail of how it might affect people. 

Edited May 9, 2019 by Mikey1874