tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1603438996450817644.post3511658333650194258..comments2024-01-12T01:56:21.933-08:00Comments on chokka blog: GERS DeniersKevin Haguehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14587343060415859159noreply@blogger.comBlogger38125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1603438996450817644.post-13576196032105032372016-08-18T00:54:35.625-07:002016-08-18T00:54:35.625-07:00I think you are being a touch melodramatic but ult...I think you are being a touch melodramatic but ultimately you are correct. <br /><br />Scotland's over generous funding settlement is a political tool, designed by the UK Government to keep Scotland in the UK.<br /><br />Personally I don't think it works well for either Scotland or the rest of the UK, but it is deemed so important to keep the UK together that no political party has the courage to scrap it. <br /><br />Drewnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1603438996450817644.post-90425128559924802022016-08-17T11:16:09.564-07:002016-08-17T11:16:09.564-07:00"Handouts and pocket money"!!! Actually ..."Handouts and pocket money"!!! Actually that's £billions annually of working people's hard-earned taxes that many other folk in the UK would be damn grateful to have spent in their region, and in many places is needed just as much or more than it is in Scotland. Really, that's entirely pathetic.<br /><br />rocohamAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1603438996450817644.post-85038925199336413652016-08-17T01:24:55.283-07:002016-08-17T01:24:55.283-07:00Alcohol and Tobacco duty are reserved to the UK Go...Alcohol and Tobacco duty are reserved to the UK Government and won't be devolved to Scotland under the new tax powers.<br /><br />The minimum unit pricing policy is able to be challenged in the courts precisely because the alcohol industry knows the Scottish Government doesn't have effective powers to legislate to reduce alcohol abuse, namely raising alcohol duty, which the alcohol lobby know they would be powerless to oppose in the courts.<br /><br />Scotland has a drugs strategy once again without any legislative powers to back this up and make the radical changes required to tackle both addiction and the cost of addiction. For example in Portugal, following their policy of decriminalization, the per capita social cost of drug misuse decreased by 18 percent. The number of people arrested and sent to criminal courts for drug offenses declined by more than 60 percent since decriminalization. This huge saving on the costs on the courts, police and prisons can than be reinvested in other areas. This is the sort of radical approach Scotland can only dream of taking with the weak and ineffective devolved settlement.<br /><br />The point I make about NATO, defence, the debt interest and the fixed budget is that these are costs the Scottish Government has no control over. From a fiscal point of view, that is all that matters. If you cannot reduce spending, that is not fiscal responsibility. Without responsibility, there is not accountability.<br /><br />Essentially Scotland is going to be stuck in a never ending cycle of debt, poverty and economic under performance unless the UK grants it proper and effective powers to improve things. Real powers and not the weak political fudges the UK has being devolving so far. Relying on handouts and pocket money from Westminster isn't working and hasn't worked for decades now. Look at all the key social and economic indicators regarding life expectancy, addiction and deprivation. If politicians running Scotland for the last generation don't take responsibility for this mess then who does?<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Drewnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1603438996450817644.post-75698219565872919772016-08-16T14:18:28.915-07:002016-08-16T14:18:28.915-07:00Reply to Drew (16 August 2016 at 06:54)
" (I...Reply to Drew (16 August 2016 at 06:54)<br /><br />" (Ireland hasn't faced a serious military threat for well over 100 years, isn't in NATO and spends less than 1 billion Euros on defence)<br /><br />Perhaps not spending enough on Defence is why Eire has to get UK RAF to assist ? " Ireland lacks aircraft that can climb high enough or go fast enough to intercept Russian aircraft which came close to Irish airspace on a couple of occasions in 2015, being driven away by British jets." <br />and <br />"British combat aircraft will shoot down aircraft over Ireland if they are hijacked by terrorists, according to local media."<br /><br />More info here<br />https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/royal-air-force-asked-defend-ireland/<br /><br /><br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1603438996450817644.post-1890069866663333132016-08-16T11:33:34.164-07:002016-08-16T11:33:34.164-07:00Once again, you've lost me. In no particular o...Once again, you've lost me. In no particular order, alcohol licensing powers are fully devolved to the SP, and the Alcohol (Minimum Pricing) (Scotland) Act 2012 was passed in June 2012 specifically to address the issue of alcohol misuse. The Scotch Whisky Association then raised a legal challenge and the matter is now, I believe, back with the Court of Session to adjudicate finally. Nothing to do with the UK or duty levels, unless someone is determined to find a grievance. On drugs, powers over the classification of controlled substances is indeed reserved to the UK government, although the Scottish Government does have its own strategy for tackling drug abuse and addiction in Scotland which appears to be delivering positive results - recorded (yes, I know) drug use is falling.<br /><br />Scotland is inescapably in NATO as part of the UK, the white paper made clear it intended to remain so, and incidentally in the UK Scotland benefits hugely from defence spending. And of course a significant % of the UK's total debt is accumulated by the cost of servicing - Scotland! Given that you appear to start from the premise that Scotland spends more than it earns, and the UK as a whole is too far in debt, you cannot responsibly be suggesting that Scotland should not carry its fair share of the debt burden, can you?<br /><br />Tax rises are very possible under the new powers, and have been perfectly possible under existing ones. It seems bizarre to suggest they are intended to "cope with" Scotland's current level of spending, which has never been their point - the block grant effectively continues as before. The question is though, is the SG brave enough to implement the powers it is given? And Scotland's current high level of public spending is hardly "set by" the UK Government, as you seem to suggest; in a number of recent years the SG has under-spent its budgeted allocation, and there is nothing to stop it spending even less if it chose to. <br /><br />All governments are incompetent to one degree or another. Examples of how to do it better are always welcome.<br /><br />The answer to your question on public finances is that Scotland is a large land area with a relatively small and sparsely distributed population, which makes the cost per capita of most universal public services expensive. Scotland just costs a lot more than the UK average per head per year to run. To fix it, one could adopt some drastic tax and cut measures, which would probably crash the economy and cause a popular revolt, or thank the stars we are part of a union in which the single biggest money engine (London) is prepared to subsidise the rest of the country so generously.<br /><br />And Drew, we are not arguing over whether independence will or won't happen. I agree with you, it won't. Not just because it is unlikely (but not completely impossible) that the UK government will choose to allow another referendum, but mainly because it is self-evidently an economically unsustainable notion. If you really want the arguments to go away, please make your case direct to the SNP, because they and their acolytes are the ones who seem determined to keep stirring the independence pot for cheap political gain (without any intention of going all the way). Like you, the rest of us would be glad if the whole issue was formally shelved, say for a generation, as promised. <br /><br />rocohamAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1603438996450817644.post-4540443367118598372016-08-16T06:54:03.703-07:002016-08-16T06:54:03.703-07:00Essentially my point is this. There will be no sec...Essentially my point is this. There will be no second independence referendum. Arguing over it is pointless. <br /><br />The UK Government made a calculated gamble to hold the 1st referendum on independence because historically every poll every held on the question in the last 3 decades gave opposition to independence at 70/30 against, they thought they would win easily.<br /><br />Given then that the No campaign threw away the 40 point lead at the start of the campaign and turned it into a 11 point win, I can't imagine the UK Government would be stupid enough to take the risk again.<br /><br />So Unionists and Nationalists and anyone else for that matter arguing over the prospect of independence that isn't ever likely to happen.<br /><br />The real question is how did Scotland's public finances get in such a mess and how did we start to fix it. Tax rises are not possible under the feeble new devolved powers coming to Scotland. Income tax would have to rise to levels unheard of in Western Europe to cope with our current level of spending, set by the UK Government, which is racking up an eye-watering amount of debt because of decades of incompetence.<br /><br />Half of Scotland's £15 billion deficit annually is made up of our share of UK defence expenditure (£3.5 billion) which is way too high for a country of our size (Ireland hasn't faced a serious military threat for well over 100 years, isn't in NATO and spends less than 1 billion Euros on defence) and the said debt interest (close to £4 billion) but there's nothing we can do to reduce them. <br /><br />Scotland has no power of alcohol duty or to change the legislation regard the misuse of drugs act yet we are stuck with spending £7 billion per year on the cost of alcohol and drug misuse to public services like police, courts, health and social services and ultimately prison. <br /><br />You can critique the SNP until the cows come home but until they have real powers over tax and spending, you are wasting your energy.Drewnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1603438996450817644.post-22652655952658270292016-08-16T03:11:52.003-07:002016-08-16T03:11:52.003-07:00Drew, it's difficult to make out what your poi...Drew, it's difficult to make out what your point is here. If it is that the UK (which includes Scotland) spends too much for what it raises in revenue, that's fine and true, but that wasn't the topic of the original post, so it is unsurprising that this "reality" isn't front and centre in the discussion. And given that in various forms (eg "if you think our debt is bad look at the UK's..") it is regularly used by Indie proponents as an entirely unjustified and misleading economic argument that independence wouldn't be a financial disaster for Scotland, you will I hope excuse some here for treating it as largely irrelevant.<br /><br />If your point is that independence will never happen so why are we here all banging on about it, well, I think a quick look around you will show that the die-hard nationalist is still alive and well, still living in a tartan-lined "wha's like us" echo-chamber, and still trotting out the same old, long disproved Indie lies, wishful thinking and conspiracy theories day after day, week after week. If places like this don't keep a banner flying for evidence-based decision-making rather than emo-nat flag-waving, then the field is left clear for the dangerous crazies to occupy unchallenged, which would be a shame.<br /><br />Your reality check comment is also strange. As part of the UK (however much devolved) Scotland's public expenditure will always be allocated as part of a UK-wide expenditure pattern by the UK government. Some expenditure in Scotland will inevitably still be reserved. Logically how could it be any other way? Yet a) Barnett ensures that the allocation to Scotland is considerably more generous than it would be under a needs-assessed formula. And b) within the confines of its block grant Scotland's government has considerable freedom of choice over how money is spent. And on taxation, to date in those areas where it also has powers to vary tax rates (for example) it has chosen to mirror those of the UK rather than adopt a more progressive approach. In the absence of any firm statement it is hard to see what it would/will do radically differently with greater tax powers. <br /><br />The reality check that would actually be helpful would be a "ground zero" picture of Scotland's finances the day after independence, together with a proper economic plan. No block grant, uncertainty over currency, massively underestimated transition costs, EU accession certainly some years away and with painful entry conditions. The variables of debt interest and intra-UK payments would have to be run, but an honest five-year picture of an iScotland's public finances and the potential economic consequences of separation should be the minimum the Scottish public should expect on which to make a decision on independence. Not just more of Salmond's inexcusable "because Scotland".<br /><br />And my "obsession" with the SNP is that they persist in evading this fundamental point. Their talk about a new "case for independence" treats it as if all that were needed was a bit of PR spin, some better packaging and more comforting presentation for the "doubters". Their PR machine wilfully perpetuates fantasies and smears opponents rather than face the facts head on. There is not a hint of addressing the painful "reality" because now for the SNP the word "independence" is no more than a canny flash of knicker; it keeps the punters' eyes on stalks, tongues hanging out and their brains scrambled enough never to realise that there's nae chance of the real deal, ever. ****-teasers.<br /><br />rocohamAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1603438996450817644.post-72706797856251739282016-08-12T02:52:33.009-07:002016-08-12T02:52:33.009-07:00David
Scotland isn't independent and is unlik...David<br /><br />Scotland isn't independent and is unlikely to ever be independent. The UK Government isn't stupid enough to gamble the continued existence of the UK for a second time.<br /> <br />You are focusing on a hypothetical situation whereas I'm talking about reality. Which is both Scotland and the UK spend far too much money in comparison with their revenue. <br />The UK holds most of the economic and political powers and as you say the SNP only has the status of a regional government. To deny that just isn't credible. <br /><br />I think you need a reality check. The UK Government makes 60% of the tax and revenue decisions in Scotland, has total control over 40% of reserved spending in Scotland and 100% control over how much money is spent in Scotland. <br /><br />There is a strange new element appearing in UK politics and that is political commentators, politicians and individuals obsessed with the SNP. They seem to spend most of their waking hours worrying about the SNP and that Scotland is in the grip of some sinister hypnosis, when the reality is most people in Scotland, probably 95% of them, rarely give politics a second thought in their daily lives. <br /><br />Drewnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1603438996450817644.post-60230707983294872162016-08-12T00:31:13.232-07:002016-08-12T00:31:13.232-07:00On the issue of Scottish government flexibility on...On the issue of Scottish government flexibility on tax raising, tax expenditure and distribution, I think we disagree. Scotland has considerable powers for a regional government within the UK polity.<br /><br />The reason I pour scorn and derision on Sturgeon more than others? Because the SNP is illiterate economically and the Scottish electorate, sad to say, is naive. I don't believe for a moment that an independent Scotland wouldn't rapidly learn the lessons learned by New Zealand, a country of similar size, the hard way, and I think the New Zealand electorate would see the SNP as shysters if their policies were ever offered in New Zealand. New Zealand Labour offers them in dilute form and has been rejected (on 3 year electoral cycles) for a decade.<br /><br />I hope this clarifies matters.David GREENnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1603438996450817644.post-11951620771668413542016-08-12T00:30:47.600-07:002016-08-12T00:30:47.600-07:00As I see it, Drew is concerned about two things: t...As I see it, Drew is concerned about two things: the overall affordability to the UK of the Barnett settlement, and the inflexibility of the powers of the Scottish government when it comes to increasing revenue.<br /><br />The issue of affordability is, to some extent, in the eye of the beholder. Drew appears to regard government budget deficits, whether UK or Scottish, as signs of unaffordability. I tend to agree, but we might be in a minority. There is a school of thought, of which Martin Wolf in the FT appears to be a member, that feels the UK should continue to borrow. After all, money is cheap and it keeps away the most-overused term in current UK politics, "austerity". Austerity, or living within your means, is economically damaging. Better to keep the fragile plant alive by borrowing. George Osborne, on this view, was wrong to try and reduce the budget deficit, because it created "austerity". My own view about Osborne is that his attempts to reduce the UK budget deficit were slow and largely ineffective, but that he wanted to be seen as a responsible Chancellor emphasising the need for sound economic policies, including some belt-tightening. He attracted the opprobrium of "austerity" politics, whilst actually producing little effect.<br /><br />To be fair to Wolf and those like him, it might be acceptable to run an expansion of UK government debt in line with increases in GDP, and keep the debt/GDP ratio at about 90%. Whether 90% is an appropriate figure, who knows? Quite a number of countries have similar figures, and the wheels are clearly not falling off. But Italy at about 140% and Japan at 250% suggest there are some levels that cause difficulty. Reinhart & Rogoff have done excellent work which suggests that economic performance does deteriorate as the ratio moves above 90%. The real Achilles' heel is servicing the debt. I think I am correct in saying that Japan spends about 25% of government revenue on debt servicing at an interest rate of 1%. Obviously, an increase to 4% would entail all Japanese government revenue going on debt servicing; an impossible situation that would result in default. Just as it would have been difficult 20 years ago, when interest rates were much higher than they are now, for us to see them fall to almost nothin (just ask the pension funds), it is currently difficult for us to see how they could ever rise again to levels that would cause governments to default on their debt. But nothing is impossible, and the prudent person would surely start cutting their cloth accordingly.<br /><br />This is a roundabout way of explaining why I have some sympathy with Drew's position on affordability. I lived in New Zealand for some time, and saw the determined efforts by New Zealand governments of all political persuasion to keep their borrowing costs down by balancing budgets (that is, not running deficits). New Zealand currently has a government debt/GDP ratio of 30.36% and is seeking to contain it at that level. One of the factors that has lead to a centre-right government in New Zealand for a decade is the perception that New Zealand Labour and the Greens would start running large budget deficits, causing immediate currency problems. The UK, by contrast, obviously feels it is immune to currency problems.<br /><br />But moving to balanced budgets would be painful for the UK and even more so for Scotland. Both entities are living well beyond their means, but Scotland more so. Whether rUK should be making transfer payments to Scotland in these circumstances is a moot point. I personally think it is beneficial for the UK as a whole, but their is little doubt it costs. <br /><br />David GREENnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1603438996450817644.post-81927316799112237502016-08-11T04:58:42.682-07:002016-08-11T04:58:42.682-07:00Great blog as usual and good to see some hoary ol...Great blog as usual and good to see some hoary old Nat chestnuts getting a right good roasting!<br /> However, please excuse a naive question:<br />How does the portrait of Scotland's economy painted by the GERS figures correlate with what actually happens in the real fiscal world?<br />For example, GERS methodology assigns VAT to Scotland according to our consumption, but is this methodology actually used by HM treasury to redistribute the VAT it collects ?<br />Or does our VAT just become just another vague ingredient in a pot, some of which is returned via the block grant or Barnett?<br />Enlighten me please so I can pursue further with my Nationalist friends!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10605203375781193563noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1603438996450817644.post-27747239767287501832016-08-11T03:52:42.546-07:002016-08-11T03:52:42.546-07:00Drew, the money being borrowed by the UK is being ...Drew, the money being borrowed by the UK <i>is being spent on public services</i>. If the money currently being borrowed was not borrowed, taxes would have to rise or cuts to spending would have to be made, both of which would have a severely negative impact on growth. As to the deficit, a number of UK government bonds actually had a negative interest rate yesterday, and pension funds are crying out to buy more long dated government bonds. These facts suggest that the deficit is perfectly managable, and in fact a large scheme of public works is not only smart, but imperative. Austerity should be abandoned by the May government, but this will for a time increase the deficit. If she does not initiate one then it will be a dramatic missed opportunity.theamblerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01842086380447890404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1603438996450817644.post-68090966660225787352016-08-09T07:03:57.918-07:002016-08-09T07:03:57.918-07:00Good blog, Kevin, and a useful one for referring t...Good blog, Kevin, and a useful one for referring to in discussion with friends and colleagues.<br />Clear presentation of Titanium-plated facts. Much appreciated.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1603438996450817644.post-60623486453702036392016-08-08T00:57:45.262-07:002016-08-08T00:57:45.262-07:00I'm afraid it is you that is muddled David.
I...I'm afraid it is you that is muddled David.<br /><br />If the UK was making a surplus every year then you would be correct, the UK could afford to make up the difference between Scotland's revenue and expenditure.<br /><br />The UK can't afford this £15 billion deficit because it is making a deficit every year itself. Which makes the UK's own deficit even larger.<br /><br />There is no magic money tree from the UK to help Scotland, the UK has to borrow this money from the markets.<br /><br />You cannot wish away the UK's addiction to borrowing, it simply doesn't work like that.<br /><br />In real terms this costs every single UK taxpayer, usually at least a few hundreds of pounds a year individually. Money in their taxes that could be spent on public services.<br /><br />It means every pound in Scotland to plug the gap between income and expenditure means more cuts elsewhere in the UK and libraries, community centres and other public services have to take reduced funding or even closure.<br /><br />With regards the SNP's so called power over expenditure, you can criticise their spending choices on univeral benefits in health and education but the bottom line is the budget is fixed so if they want to make spending in a certain area a priority, it means cuts elsewhere. <br /><br />They have very little power over the ability to increase revenue, even when the new powers over income tax come to Scotland.<br /><br />Income tax would have to rise to eye-watering levels before Scotland could make a serious dent in our deficit.<br /><br />You make great play of denouncing the fantasy politics of other parties but trying to claim the cost of Barnett and plugging the gap in Scotland's finances is without a cost to the UK is confused at best.<br />Drewnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1603438996450817644.post-49078699697285445012016-08-05T00:16:08.168-07:002016-08-05T00:16:08.168-07:00Some muddled thinking is creeping in from Drew. It...Some muddled thinking is creeping in from Drew. It is self-evident to me that a party that is committed to the Union is also potentially committed to sustaining the Barnett money. So, Ruth Davidson can be in the position of ignoring the problem of losing the GBP 9 billion a year subvention from rUK, and still advocating tax cuts. She balances the books, after receiving Barnett money, by reducing services, etc. Some people may not like it, but there is no obvious hypocrisy involved.<br /><br />Moreover, it is wrong to suggest that the Scottish Government is constrained in its expenditure distribution by the terms of the block grant. Take the NHS, for example. It is well recognized that the SNP spends less per capita on health than rUK, despite the fact that the Barnett formula provides for NHS expenditure at the UK level. It is not called a block grant for nothing. The "NHS" money that is unspent by the SNP is not returned to the UK government. It is spent on keeping the Scottish middle-class quiet; for example, by subsidising Scottish university fees. As we all know, it is the poor that get screwed by the SNP in Scotland, and there is no better evidence than in the appalling achievement expectations of children from poorer families. <br /><br />If there is hypocrisy, it lies with the SNP, who refuse to confront the 9 billion Barnett loss that would occur on independence, and who implicitly want to inflict eye-watering austerity as a result upon a dumb Scottish population. The nearest you will get to recognition is George Kerevan.<br /><br />I was interested, therefore, in your latest blog, Kevin, and in the existence of "GERS deniers" and the manifold shapes that their denying took. There is a kind of morbid fascination in seeing the collision between rational, evidence-based arguments of the kind espoused by you, and the faith-based rubbish of SNP supporters awaiting the Second Coming (of the independence referendum, that is).<br /><br />Sturgeon, I am fairly certain, does use evidence in making some of her decisions, but where she is a shocker is in her temptation to exploit the "rapture" of her independence supporters. I had the impression, a few months ago, that she was going to proceed cautiously with IndyRef2 and resist Alex Salmond's obvious pressure, but Brexit appears to have disinhibited her.<br /><br />To be fair, Scottish independence is not the only faith-based political project around. Another is the Labour party. How a misogynistic, anti-semitic party headed by a doddery old man expects to get elected as a UK Government should be beyond comprehension, but the Corbynistas clearly expect great things.<br /><br />Interesting times.David GREENnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1603438996450817644.post-79092860794931228342016-08-04T04:19:27.812-07:002016-08-04T04:19:27.812-07:00Fair enough, I dip in and out of your blog and don...Fair enough, I dip in and out of your blog and don't have time to read every article but it seems to me you focus most of the attention on the SNP's policies. Which is fair enough because they are currently the party of government.<br /><br />And when talking about a sensible debate, I meant more generally, not you and I. <br /><br />There are many Unionists politicians, bloggers, activists and commentators (by that I mean mostly Conservatives because they are currently the largest block of the UK parties) that attempt to deny historical data.<br /><br />They deny the UK's finances (and by that I mean tax levels and public spending levels) are unsustainable now and have been historically for decades. They deny the UK was spending more than the revenue it brought in frequently, even before the financial crisis of 08. Only peak oil revenues in the 1980s and early 1990s disguised the problem. Instead they claimed the 1980s and 1990s were a prosperous era. But our public finances have been progressively worse since, not better.<br /><br />Scottish independence is off the table. There isn't going to be another referendum any time soon because the UK Government can reasonably block it, on the grounds we have answered the question in a fair and reasonably manner.<br /><br />The SNP only run a very limited set of public accounts, they have no control over 70% of the revenue streams. They cannot reduce the spending levels in Scotland, even if they wanted to, because we get a fixed block grant. When they don't spend all of the block grant, they come under pressure from opposition parties for not spending enough!<br /><br />So you need to focus on Scotland's finances as part of the UK. That is where the fiscal accountability lies, at the Treasury. Which as I've explained, those finances in a terrible shape and there is no credible plan or even the first idea, of within any party, to get them back into shape.Drewnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1603438996450817644.post-33763419261284218622016-08-04T03:28:56.180-07:002016-08-04T03:28:56.180-07:00Drew mate - the SNP near as dammit mirrored Tory t...Drew mate - the SNP near as dammit mirrored Tory tax policies and I'm on record frequently arguing for more aggressively progressive taxation so you're arguing with the wrong guy (or perhaps have not been reading my blog - which is forgivable). I was vocally supportive of Scottish Labour's tax proposals for example > <a href="http://chokkablog.blogspot.co.uk/2016/02/srit-scottish-labours-proposal.html" rel="nofollow">SRIT: Scottish Labour's Proposal</a><br /><br />As for suggesting parties offering policy proposals you (and in many cases I) disagree with is equivalent to attempting to deny the validity of historical actual data - well that's just daft.Kevin Haguehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14587343060415859159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1603438996450817644.post-78297169148494388312016-08-04T01:29:45.566-07:002016-08-04T01:29:45.566-07:00The largest Unionist party in Scotland at the mome...The largest Unionist party in Scotland at the moment are the Conservatives and most of their MSPs, activists and supporters back tax cuts, despite the fact Scotland is facing a huge deficit every year. <br /><br />You cannot hope to reduce the deficit and propose tax cuts at the same time.<br /><br />This is pure fantasy economics and equally guilty of deceiving the public as GERS deniers.<br /><br />Leading Unionist Ruth Davidson set up the Commission on Tax Reform in January to propose various tax cuts at local and national level.<br /><br />She gets get ample air time and column inches in leading newspapers to spread this misinformation to the public.<br /><br />Leading Scottish newspaper columnists like Brian Monteith and Chris Deerin support tax cuts, despite also continually highlighting Scotland's large deficit. When Scotland's spending is so high, we need more revenue coming in, not less. <br /><br />We can't hope to have a sensible debate about tax and spending in Scotland if people are allowed without question, to propose such nonsense.<br /><br />I like your blog because it is well-informed and evidence-based but it is too one sided. If you really want to inform the voters about the the real crisis facing Scotland's public finances, you need to raise awareness of the dangers of politicians that get away with calling for tax cuts when the books don't balance.<br /><br />The only political parties in my eyes that have any credibility on the public finances are Scottish Labour, the Scottish Lib Dems and the Scottish Greens.<br /><br />None of their proposed tax rises go anywhere near far enough but Scotland's tax powers are currently too limited to make any real dent in our deficit anyway.<br /><br />Drewnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1603438996450817644.post-76971021237860389612016-08-03T16:09:19.040-07:002016-08-03T16:09:19.040-07:00If you read my blog you'll know I consider Osb...If you read my blog you'll know I consider Osborne's tax cuts indefensible - but when it comes to "grass roots" misinformation spreading I'm not buying that "they're all as bad as each other" - show me the equivalent of the GERS deniers from other sides of the debate Kevin Haguehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14587343060415859159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1603438996450817644.post-62453599203189659342016-08-03T16:04:12.753-07:002016-08-03T16:04:12.753-07:00Oh Ian - yes I believe the government figures - yo...Oh Ian - yes I believe the government figures - you do know tax is charged on profit not sales, right?<br /><br />are you seriously suggesting they are hiding taxes somewhere? how do you think they get the accounts to reconcile?Kevin Haguehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14587343060415859159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1603438996450817644.post-7521711872300438272016-08-03T16:03:23.121-07:002016-08-03T16:03:23.121-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Kevin Haguehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14587343060415859159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1603438996450817644.post-70928643768522520262016-08-03T06:02:08.121-07:002016-08-03T06:02:08.121-07:00When you say 'high profile and widely read'...When you say 'high profile and widely read' you are really only talking about the 10,000-15,000 regular readers of the National and at a push 50,000 people on Twitter that regularly read Wings.<br /><br />Which sounds a lot but it only really adds up to 1-2%, at best, of the adult Scottish population.<br /><br />I would say most politicians and political activists are all equally guilty of manipulating statistics and economic data.<br /><br />The Conservatives are the best in the business at it and it has made them extremely successful at winning elections.<br /><br />Most sensible people know deep down you can't have both well funded public services and low taxes because the sums don't add up. But election after election the public fall for this huge myth because they want to believe it is true.<br /><br />The UK is £1.6 trillion in debt and hasn't made an annual budget surplus for 13 years. In fact it has only made 7 budget surpluses in 40 years.<br /><br />But the Conservatives have successfully sold the myth that the UK's ability to fund public services is working perfectly well when they are in charge and we can still reduce taxes. Even though they have been in charge for 6 years and the overall debt is still rising and they have missed every target for getting back to an annual budget surplus.<br /><br />They managed to convince the UK public that Labour were to blame for a world wide crisis in financial services, as if Gordon Brown was simultaneously in charge of the US Treasury and UK Chancellor at the same time.<br /><br />Ironically, under Tony Blair, Labour made more budget surpluses than Thatcher did in her whole time in office.Drewnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1603438996450817644.post-62642402276648740572016-08-03T03:46:33.720-07:002016-08-03T03:46:33.720-07:00"If this person had even an elementary unders..."If this person had even an elementary understanding of GERS they would know that Scotland is apportioned a share of defence expenditure within GERS which comes to around £3.5 billion, while our apportioned share of debt interest is closer to £4 billion."<br /><br />£3.5 billion Defence?<br />£4 billion Debt interest?<br /><br /><br />According to SNP Government GERS<br /><br />£3.019 billion Defence expenditure<br />£2.760 billion Debt interest<br /><br />http://www.gov.scot/Publications/2016/03/3692/5<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1603438996450817644.post-79117299065259754292016-08-03T02:08:07.464-07:002016-08-03T02:08:07.464-07:00Drew
There is of course ignorance on both sides b...Drew<br /><br />There is of course ignorance on both sides but ... I cite examples with links and we're talking high profile and widely read sites like Wings over Scotland or journalists like Kavanagh and McKenna or politicians like Mason and McAlpine - I could go on (and on and on)<br /><br />I don't think an unattributed quote you read online (which I don't doubt - people from both sides will get stuff wrong) is comparable to the stream of misinformation spread by GERS deniers or those presenting false narratives like "oil is a bonus", "we send more than we get back" etc etc.Kevin Haguehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14587343060415859159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1603438996450817644.post-32528518153200977572016-08-03T01:27:47.855-07:002016-08-03T01:27:47.855-07:00It should be pointed out Nationalists are far from...It should be pointed out Nationalists are far from alone in their poor grasp of GERS figures and Scotland's finances. <br /><br />There are plenty of Unionists on the internet making rookie errors.<br /><br />For example, here is a comment I saw online recently:<br /><br />'Scotland with a £15bn deficit - contributes zero to defence. Scotland doesn't raise enough revenues to even cover identified public spending in Scotland, let alone contribute towards defence, eu, debt interest, international aid, diplomatic missions.'<br /><br />If this person had even an elementary understanding of GERS they would know that Scotland is apportioned a share of defence expenditure within GERS which comes to around £3.5 billion, while our apportioned share of debt interest is closer to £4 billion.<br /><br />You shouldn't fall into the trap that all the spreading of misinformation is one sided, that door swings both ways.<br /><br />Drewnoreply@blogger.com