tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1603438996450817644.post619465351670196552..comments2024-01-12T01:56:21.933-08:00Comments on chokka blog: An Open Letter to Nicola SturgeonKevin Haguehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14587343060415859159noreply@blogger.comBlogger62125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1603438996450817644.post-50597203556571352282016-07-02T11:41:29.210-07:002016-07-02T11:41:29.210-07:00Arbo. You flatter Nicola. DoB 19/07/70. Braveheart...Arbo. You flatter Nicola. DoB 19/07/70. Braveheart 1995.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1603438996450817644.post-20976365154048843802016-06-08T08:35:50.750-07:002016-06-08T08:35:50.750-07:00I notice that Kevin says Sturgeon got the independ...I notice that Kevin says Sturgeon got the independence bug at 16, that didn't coincide with Mel Gibson's portrayal of Braveheart did it?<br />I hope not because she'll always be a Krankie to me.Arbo regularhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07028613595289039402noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1603438996450817644.post-3023139825801068342016-06-03T02:09:06.286-07:002016-06-03T02:09:06.286-07:00I like I've been shot down in flames so I'...I like I've been shot down in flames so I'll start name calling. Like the article BTW. It is for the indie crew to set the case not us the public. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10549456368764720986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1603438996450817644.post-89755188531464386402016-06-02T04:33:03.996-07:002016-06-02T04:33:03.996-07:00Of course, another way would be to abolish the Sco...Of course, another way would be to abolish the Scottish Assembly, and become fully integrated with rUK economy as we used to be, because the UK as a whole is reducing its deficit year on year.....<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14165575984183181538noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1603438996450817644.post-57141673112564020732016-06-02T03:58:02.613-07:002016-06-02T03:58:02.613-07:00It would be great if ScotGov would come up with po...It would be great if ScotGov would come up with policies that moved us from deficit, shaped our business and industry strategy to turn us back into an industrial powerhouse, properly repaired education etc etc (all of which could be embarked on without further constitutional change), but it doesnt seem likely when there is only really one topic in Scottish politics - Independence. And the SNP put it there, not the opposition. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12807332678409619236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1603438996450817644.post-81013645318059999962016-06-01T04:34:35.631-07:002016-06-01T04:34:35.631-07:00Tam, thanks. Moving on then, and (I think) agreein...Tam, thanks. Moving on then, and (I think) agreeing that GERS figures are sufficiently robust for purpose, we arrive at the argument that GERS largely shows Scotland as part of the UK's macro-economic and political policy picture, whereas an independent Scotland could/would make very different economic/political choices from rUK and its financial situation could/would therefore be much better. <br /><br />The difficulty with this line of argument is that, as Kevin has just pointed out, no-one yet has made the numbers add up. At the heart of the problem lies the expectation of independence in the white paper, which disgracefully promised that achieving it would involve no loss, hardship or effort, would enable even more "progressive" policies (ie freebies), could all be done at a bargain price and within 18 months, and would make everyone in Scotland RICH as well as "free". A big Giro, the moral high ground AND one in the eye for the English oppressors, was what the white paper offered. No wonder so many signed up. There was no downside or risk to independence at all. It was too seductive a picture for its political authors now to have to confess that it was, even at the time, recklessly over-optimistic and misleading.<br /><br />Now the reality of the numbers is all too apparent so also is the huge downside and the risk (not to mention the full extent of the calamity averted by the No vote). An independent Scotland would be faced with some very tough choices indeed for a considerable time. Nobody is saying they could not be made IF the eventual goal were worthwhile and the people agreed. But equally, no-one has set out a remotely credible sustainable economic picture of an iScotland end game (arguing for independence in principle for its own sake, and damning the consequences doesn't count), or of the inevitably complex, hard and long path by which it might be achieved. <br /><br />Scotland would certainly have to do things very differently if independence were ever to be a reality, differently not just from rUK but also from the blissful pain-free utopian fantasy painted by the white paper. It would involve tax increases and expenditure savings to orders of magnitude way beyond the tinkering mentioned so far. But I don't hear Sturgeon mention any of this, or dealing any more honestly with the Scottish people about what independence might require of them. I don't see any indication that Scotland is being readied to stand on its own two feet, in fact the reverse: the FM was recently crowing about the even more generous subsidy she squeezed out of Westminster. Until the Scottish Government sets out a more honest, responsible case for independence that deals in realities rather than wishful thinking I shall continue to believe that the SNP's real interest in independence is that it should remain forever out of reach - a juicy bone to keep dangling in front of their followers, a nationalist grievance to keep festering, and a handy stick with which to beat Westminster for yet more favours. Not something ever to be addressed with honest intent, and certainly never made to happen. rocoham <br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1603438996450817644.post-82996521331462453112016-05-31T22:03:09.223-07:002016-05-31T22:03:09.223-07:00"Viewed from a detached position, one could a..."Viewed from a detached position, one could argue that Scotland has many of the economic problems vis-à-vis rUK, that Spain or Greece, say, have relative to the Eurozone."<br /><br />One extremely major difference is that we have a fiscal union with the rUK, and Greece does not have one with rEU. That fiscal union (that manifests itself as Barnett) prevents Scotland from ending up like Greece when the oil price is low. Fiscal union is proposed as a solution to the current problems Greece has, but it won't happen because Germany would never agree to it.<br /><br />This is what angers me about the economic plans during the independence campaign: Salmond could see the problems Greece had with it's economic arrangements, but he still decided to go along with the same arrangements. Some of the literature put out before the campaign suggested we could not end up in a 'Greece' situation, but we now see how counterfeit this claim was.theamblerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01842086380447890404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1603438996450817644.post-22904726730897852162016-05-31T17:07:27.077-07:002016-05-31T17:07:27.077-07:00Alex Gallagher
You say: "The only thing I w...Alex Gallagher <br /><br />You say: "The only thing I will say about GERS is it didn't exist before 1999. The SNP insisted on it. They probably hoped it would prove their belief that Scotland gets a raw deal from the UK." Well that is simply not true according to the Cuthberts whom you then proceed to quote. Here is what they say about the origin of GERS:<br /><br />"The very first GERS report was published in 1992. Its purpose was to estimate the general government borrowing requirement for Scotland, or, as GERS put it, Scotland’s “fiscal deficit”. This is the difference between the amount of expenditure undertaken by government on behalf of the people of Scotland, and the tax and other public revenues attributable to Scotland. <br /><br />The motivation for producing the initial GERS was political. GERS had been commissioned by the Conservative Secretary of State for Scotland, Ian Lang: and this is what he said about it, in a leaked memorandum to John Major: <br />“I judge that it 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.”<br /><br />As for your political point- I am not sure where you are going with it. Ruling out a second referendum for a generation was central to the Yes campaign? You may want that to be the case but it most certainly was not. How can anyone rule out a second referendum? The truth is no-one had the power to do so and no one did. That you want people to have ruled out a second referendum does not make it so. There were opinions of course, there was an ad campaign based on "One Opportunity" which I remember because I pushed hunners of those leaflets through doors. My point remains valid- you dispute everything in the White Paper with the exception of one line which you distort to make your point- where on earth is the consistency there?<br /><br />Hibs had One Opportunity- a great opportunity to win the Scottish Cup last Saturday as did Rangers. Neither side might have the opportunity again for a generation but it is hardly ruled out and certainly I can imagine Stubbsy telling the team before the game what a massive opportunity they had - one that might not swing round again for them. Can you imagine Warburton will now permanently withdraw Rangers from the Scottish Cup? Or for a 15 years or 25 years or whatever? <br /><br />I'm being flippant as I know its such an important argument for so many on the unionists side. Maybe the SNP let it go unchallenged so often because they don't mind their opponents painting themselves as anti-democratic. There was no promise, nor could their have been or ever be. Nobody gets to write the rules of sovereignty of the Scottish people in this way. <br /><br />I would have thought the Better Together camp would be relieved to have the chance for another crack at trying to make a positive case? I waited 3 years in vain to hear it.<br /><br />As for Nicola Sturgeon tacitly admitting we would be worse off economically because she wants to take a fresh look at the Independence arguments I fail to see that leap. It is the least controversial idea possible to look again at an approach if it has not been as successful as you would like. I would be amazed if Nicola Sturgeon said- OK we lost the last referendum so lets NOT take another look at the case.<br /><br />Anyway- thanks for coming back to me. <br />Tam<br /><br />PS- It is not my intention to post so many things on this thread but people keep replying and it is an interesting discussion. As long as I am not pissing people off I will try and address the points raised to the best of my ability.Tam Jardinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13530578680824358634noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1603438996450817644.post-58962313884145890512016-05-31T11:00:58.006-07:002016-05-31T11:00:58.006-07:00Tam
There is one problem with the logic as you pr...Tam<br /><br />There is one problem with the logic as you present it - the Yes campaign had the opportunity to propose all of the things you do and in most cases did (currency being the obvious exception, for obvious reasons) - and when they added that lot up they optimistically arrived at £0.5bn of savings which - frankly - don't make a dent in the figures.<br /><br />This is the issue - all of the talk of "contributions towards westminster & its ministries" and "the MOD" sounds great until you add it up and compare those theoretical savings with the deficit gap.<br /><br />I can't emphasis enough how optimistic the White Paper cost assumptions were (see chokkablog passim) and they still felt the need to include c.£8bn of oil revenues in there to attempt to make the figures palatable.<br /><br />As for blaming all of this on Westminster "intransigence and borderline belligerence" I can only assume that's intended as humour - a more intransigent and (way-past border-line) belligerent stance than that of the SNP would be hard to even conceive.<br /><br />Kevin Haguehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14587343060415859159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1603438996450817644.post-33368707337467176932016-05-31T07:32:15.619-07:002016-05-31T07:32:15.619-07:00Tam
I'll let Kevin and rocoham deal with the a...Tam<br />I'll let Kevin and rocoham deal with the actual economics. <br /><br />The only thing I will say about GERS is it didn't exist before 1999. The SNP insisted on it. They probably hoped it would prove their belief that Scotland gets a raw deal from the UK. The Nationalist economists Jim and Margaret Cuthbert were on the group that set up the method and reviewed and commented on the numbers. In 2006 the Cuthberts quit, stating that the figures showed Barnett and other UK public spending was crucial to meeting a "well established funding gap" in Scotland's economy. So GERS didn't show what the SNP wanted, if anything the opposite, but they're stuck with it.<br /><br />As for the political side. you say;<br /><br /><i>"I have spent a large part of my adult life hearing and reading just about every sentence uttered by Alex Salmond criticised, derided and questioned. He makes a fairly obvious point that in his opinion the referendum was a once in a generation opportunity (presumably to focus minds on the decision and motivate the population) and it is held up like Moses bleedin tablets of stone! <br /><br />It seems to be the only thing that he has ever uttered that unionists believe to be gospel! All I ask for is a little consistency of approach."</i><br /><br />It wasn't just Salmond and it wasn't just a casual remark. Sturgeon (Minister for the Referendum, lest you forget) said it many times and on many platforms. It was in SNP printed material. Crucially, it was in the White Paper, so it was a formal part of the SNP case for "independence". It was central to the Yes campaign. It was indeed one of their bleedin' tablets of stone. Now they want to renege and it seems that's ok with you. But it's not ok with me or the majority of Scots. <br /><br /><i>You want to build support for the union ? The way to do it surely to demonstrate that we are doing well and that 300 years of union has NOT left Scotland with a basket-case economy. Yet all I hear is how crap our "sub-national" economy is.</i><br /><br />It's not about whether we have "a basket case economy". No doubt it's not perfect, and we can always point to problems. It's about whether Scots (me, you, our families and friends and neighbours and townspeople and fellow countrymen) would be better or worse off. The economic facts show we would be economically worse off. The Cuthberts acknowledged that, years ago. Even Sturgeon tacitly admits it by suggesting a relaunch of a new approach to "independence" starting this summer. If the previous case was so watertight, why change it?Alex Gallagherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09651972217573480242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1603438996450817644.post-83846832238288960472016-05-31T06:36:03.846-07:002016-05-31T06:36:03.846-07:00I see Keith Brown, the new Scottish Cabinet Secret...I see Keith Brown, the new Scottish Cabinet Secretary for the Scottish Economy, is due to give a speech this afternoon on the steps he proposes to use to revive/rejuvenate the Scottish Economy. It will be interesting to hear what he proposes, particularly if it requires the SNP to re-examine its shibboleths, of which it has many.<br /><br />Viewed from a detached position, one could argue that Scotland has many of the economic problems vis-à-vis rUK, that Spain or Greece, say, have relative to the Eurozone. In both cases, their economies have an exchange rate, relative to the currency whole, that is arguably too high. This leads to higher wages relative to their outputs, and a loss of competitiveness, both in overseas and domestic markets. A sign of this loss is an increase in unemployment. Scotland is showing these signs. It is compounding them by keeping taxes high and maintaining high government expenditure in areas that contribute little to improved productivity, but fall into the "nice to have"category. Its failure in this area is reflected in massive budget deficits. All the countries I have mentioned, and more, have tried to solve their currency problems within a fixed exchange rate by internal devaluation, reducing wages in nominal as well as real terms in a period of nearly-zero inflation. It leads to a lot of social unrest and, in the case of incumbent governments, a risk of loss of office. Keith Brown has got try and square this impossible circle.<br /><br />Salmond, not surprisingly, got the currency issue completely wrong. He wanted independence (which would lose the Barnett top-ups) but to keep the Scottish pound pegged to Sterling. What any intelligent economist would have suggested was that he float the Scottish pound within a regionally autonomous region of the UK. He probably wouldn't have wanted that, and neither would rUK. So Scottish independence would simultaneously have removed the Barnett transfer payments and allowed the currency to float. It would have been quite some economic shock, but it would have had the merit of allowing Scotland's pound to float and for Scotland to become more competitive economically. Unfortunately, pretty well everyone in Scotland would have been considerably poorer for some time.<br /><br />So, if we assume that loss of Barnett and a floating Scottish pound are out, then where does Keith Brown start? Well, if the SNP is going to run huge budget deficits, then it could start by making sure that the deficit arises from investment in the right places; i.e. investment that creates a decent return. Dump the shibboleths of free university education, doctors' visits, etc. Even socialist France charges to see the GP, and a lot else besides. Then start reducing business taxes. And if it means removing SG freebies from the Scottish chattering classes, so be it. For myself, the endless 'austerity' rhetoric needs to be cut back as well. It is mostly SNP cant.David GREENnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1603438996450817644.post-61210767203695423322016-05-31T05:08:31.737-07:002016-05-31T05:08:31.737-07:00Dear Tam,
"administered by her larger neighbo...Dear Tam,<br />"administered by her larger neighbour"<br />England does not administer Scotland. Where did you get that idea from? They are both part of the UK, and administered by the UK and Scottish Govts.<br /><br />"you presumably voted in 2014 to keep everything exactly as it was?"<br />The UK remains one of the world's major economies:<br /><br />https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)<br /><br />As the GERS figures show, Scotland generally gets a good deal as part of this robust economy. Revenue is good, but expenditure (drawing on general UK revenue) has most often been higher.<br /><br />Given that the UK has (literally) a queue of people trying to get in, I have to wonder what your motivation for changing the situation is.<br />Is it:<br />- the GERS figures?<br />- to grab a bigger portion of North Sea Oil?<br />- to get a Labour government?<br />- to hope to improve the fecundity of the Scottish population?<br />- to have politicians of higher morality because of their Scottishness?<br />- to have elected representatives that are just like you, because they're Scottish?<br />- to prove it can be done?<br /><br />That's all the possible reasons I can think of, and I don't see why you find any of them compelling. We're in the UK, and life is good by any reasonable measure. Yes, there is room for improvement, but I think you are taking a good thing for granted. Perhaps I'm missing something?<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1603438996450817644.post-65433854465195419272016-05-31T03:55:20.766-07:002016-05-31T03:55:20.766-07:00Rocoham
We seem to be at cross-purposes. I was re...Rocoham<br /><br />We seem to be at cross-purposes. I was replying to User 512 above who suggested that "I'd say that the figures produced by an SNP government are more likely to favour Scotland than the rest of the UK." Having been jumped on for questioning GERS earlier I had to respond to someone suggesting that the GERS figures were skewed to FAVOUR Scotland. I am surprised no one else did!<br /><br />I was happy we had reached a kind of understanding that the GERS figures were as accurate as we were going to get and we could move on. <br /><br />As Kevin points out "The figures do not tell us what the future accounts of an independent Scotland would look like. They do however describe the starting point (the “run-rate”) from where we can start to consider the possible impact and fiscal implications of independence."<br /><br />I would stress that from the moment of independence they will change dramatically as money going south will end immediately and money travelling north will end. We would for example have no further contributions towards Westminster or any of it's ministries, or the National Debt in the case of no currency union taking place. Our contributions to the MOD would end (perhaps this would be phased in- who knows). <br /><br />In the place of all of these agencies and bodies this large amount of spending by the UK government on Scotland's behalf a different amount of money would be spent by Scotland in Scotland to fulfil the functions of state no longer provided by Westminster. So as snapshots go I would suggest it is a look at the end rather than the beginning.<br /><br />I would agree you need working figures in advance but as Kevin points out they do not tell us what an independent Scotland's finances look like. <br /><br />The reason I posted anything on here is because I read Kevin's The Price of Independence and within that report there is a graph which show Scotland miles off the bottom of the league table of EU countries. I understand from Kevin's piece that this forms part of his snapshot of the beginning of independence and is useful if you are of a mind to retain the UK in tact as it suggests (even though it is not Kevin's intention to do so) that we are in a perilous financial state.<br /><br />If you are coming at it from the point of view of someone like me who wants Independence and who has a vision for our place as a successful Independent country within the EU- your reaction will be different. It is natural to say- is this a suitable method to use? How accurate is it? Why are we at the very bottom of the graph and Norway is hidden away to the left out of view? Our GDP seems to be OK so why is our apparent deficit so extortionate that this graph paints a very bleak view. This is not some absurd flight of fancy I am on! <br /><br />If my marriage was on the rocks and I looked at an analysis of my households finances and found that I would personally be in a ruinous state immediately after leaving the family home my reaction might be: I am Better Together but It might equally be- Why am I seemingly in such a perilous financial state? I might also want to understand the methodology used to calculate this bleak picture. What I am saying is not mental.<br /><br />I know there is an opinion abroad that all Independence supporters are unthinking zealots who are brainwashed with ideas of a prosperous independent Scotland that are detached from reality. I am under no illusion that there would be difficulties, particularly if Westminster continued with the same intransigence and borderline belligerence they displayed during the Indyref. <br /><br />Anyway- I hope that clears up any confusion. Cheers Tam Jardinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13530578680824358634noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1603438996450817644.post-15086298030435529672016-05-31T00:55:18.598-07:002016-05-31T00:55:18.598-07:00Good grief Tam, your "GERS is accurate/inaccu...Good grief Tam, your "GERS is accurate/inaccurate" line of argument is getting tedious. A. As it is not an independent entity Scotland's public finances are, obviously, substantially integrated into those of the UK as a whole. B. So in order to disaggregate figures which can be reasonably confidently attributed to Scotland and used as the basis for economic planning, a methodology called GERS is employed, not least by the Scottish Government. C. While this cannot be 100% accurate it is nevertheless completely robust, fine-tuned and precise enough for purpose. ["Accuracy" is not an absolute condition but a utility; its adequacy depends on the use it needs to meet. Is a sat-nav system which only gives a position correct to ten yards "inaccurate"? For a driver using a road system no, for the military using guided missiles yes. Do you not look at your watch because it gains 5 seconds a day and thus is "inaccurate"?] GERS is just fine. D. There are just as many if not more potential areas of ambiguity, manipulation and "inaccuracy" in unitary national public finance accounts - see various devices used by governments to manage expenditure "off the books", or as with Greece to make their finances appear to fit EU entry criteria. E. So a "unitary = accurate, disaggregated = inaccurate assumption is simply not the case. F. There is no inconsistency in claiming GERS is accurate while finding flaws in the SNP's case for independence based on them. The SNP cherry-picked from GERS the figures and date ranges that suited them, and omitted those that didn't. It was not GERS that was wrong, but the SNP's use of accurate figures to draw wildly self-serving conclusions and forecasts. G. The logic of your position appears to be: we will never know what the accurate figures are until we are independent. That is both untrue and illogical. The figures are plenty accurate already. And if you want to build a case for independence you need working figures in advance to inform public choice, not after the event when it is too late. GERS gives you those figures, now. So can we put this to bed, please? rocohamAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1603438996450817644.post-19581094046398571182016-05-30T14:46:32.351-07:002016-05-30T14:46:32.351-07:00I'm afraid you're completely missing the p...I'm afraid you're completely missing the point about how people like me use the GERS figures. I explain it fully in the detailed report <a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9i7kxf8EcbbTjBySFVOdmpsbjA/view" rel="nofollow">The Price of Independence</a> - I strongly recommend you take the time to read it<br /><br />This is an extract:<br /><br /><i><br /><br />We should be very clear about what this analysis of historical fiscal data can and cannot tell us. The figures only tell us how an independent Scotland’s finances would have looked if we had already been independent but were still raising taxes and incurring public spending (including reserved expenditure) as we have been as an integral part of the UK. We are looking at what in financial accounting terms would be considered pro-forma accounts.<br /><br />The figures do not tell us what the future accounts of an independent Scotland would look like. They do however describe the starting point (the “run-rate”) from where we can start to consider the possible impact and fiscal implications of independence.<br /><br />Precisely how independence would change Scotland’s economy is of course a hugely complicated subject that would require us to consider, amongst other factors;<br /><br />• The outcomes of uncertain negotiations around issues such as currency, inherited share of<br /><br />• The explicit tax and spend choices that the government of an independent Scotland might<br /><br />• The impact of factors outside the Scottish Government’s direct control such as how debt and EU membership make. Although inevitably constrained by the result of the negotiations above, these would include decisions around wealth redistribution, defence, industrial and economic policy, international affairs, debt and deficit management, social policy priorities and much more.<br /><br />• The impact of factors outside the Scottish Government’s direct control such asow businesses and the labour force would respond, international energy prices, international credit ratings and Scotland’s cost of debt<br /><br />• The cumulative effect of all of the above on Scotland’s economic growth<br /><br />The potential upsides and downsides of all of these and more was the subject of much debate during the independence referendum. This report does not attempt to re-run those arguments.<br /><br />With all of these caveats given, it is worth noting that those commentators who suggest that “the GERS figures tells us almost nothing that can be related to the finances of an independent Scotland”12 are insulting not only the intelligence of their readers but the also the Scottish Government’s statisticians and the authors of the Independence White paper (which cites GERS figures on no less than 15 occasions and used them as the basis for the economic case presented). To deny the validity of the GERS data would be to deny the source of the data that gave rise to such observations as:<br /><br /> “Scotland is the 14th richest nation in the world”<br /><br /> “Scotland’s GDP per head is £2,300 higher than the UK as a whole”<br /><br /> “[Scots have] paid more tax per head of population every year for the past 34 years”<br /><br /> “Scotland more than pays her way in the UK”<br /><br /></i>Kevin Haguehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14587343060415859159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1603438996450817644.post-203575733043149962016-05-29T03:03:08.928-07:002016-05-29T03:03:08.928-07:00User512 20 May 2016 at 15:44
Apologies for the sl...User512 20 May 2016 at 15:44<br /><br />Apologies for the slow response. <br /><br />1. My original point was that the most unreliable figures on Kevin's graph of deficit to GDP were for Scotland as it was/is the only country that is non-unitary. And you concede this point which is good as it is self evidently the case. My questioning of the accuracy of GERS has been criticised further up this thread and amusingly you yourself are now questioning them: which one is it to be? <br /><br />Much has been made of the Scottish Government's reliance on GERS figures in the White Paper (and subsequent sets of GERS figures used to contradict arguments made in the White Paper). The same criticism has to be applied to unionists. Either you consider the figures to be accurate and rely on them for your argument or you do not consider them accurate and do not rely on them. You can't have it both ways. <br /><br />It is a wee bit like the "once in a generation opportunity" thing. I have spent a large part of my adult life hearing and reading just about every sentence uttered by Alex Salmond criticised, derided and questioned. He makes a fairly obvious point that in his opinion the referendum was a once in a generation opportunity (presumably to focus minds on the decision and motivate the population) and it is held up like Moses bleedin tablets of stone! <br /><br />It seems to be the only thing that he has ever uttered that unionists believe to be gospel! All I ask for is a little consistency of approach.<br /><br />By the way- I would argue that the EU referendum (for anyone wishing to vote Leave) IS a once in a generation opportunity but as a democrat it is obvious that another vote is possible as early as the next parliament. How could the situation possibly be any different?<br /><br />Anyway- my point is-you think the Scottish Government has if anything fudged GERS to paint a less bleak picture of the notional Scottish economy. They didn't do a very good job last time round then, did they! And if the Scottish Economy is in even worst shape than Kevin's graph suggests - you presumably voted in 2014 to keep everything exactly as it was? <br /><br />That is what I do not understand about the unionist proposition. You want to build support for the union ? The way to do it surely to demonstrate that we are doing well and that 300 years of union has NOT left Scotland with a basket-case economy. Yet all I hear is how crap our "sub-national" economy is.<br /><br />2. So your position- The GERS figures are inaccurate and if anything paint a rose tinted picture of our bleak economic position. Scotland's decline in population in the 2nd half of the 20th century and subsequent growth following devolution (presumably due in large part to economic migration from Eastern Europe) is fine because we are a "sub national territory" and other territories have suffered decline. Fine. My interest is Scotland and so from my narrow minded perspective decline in my country when administered by her larger neighbour is not fine. I considered 1950-2000 rather than 1950-2015 because it seemed to make my point better. You look post 2000 and you start to see the influence of the Scottish Parliament and the big influx of immigrants in the reversal of decline. 1950-2000 is on Westminster alone.<br /><br />3. Re the "tinkering" with Barnett (as you put the deliberate depressing of growth in the Scottish economy in the 1980s by the UK Treasury) I would ask you to check out the George Younger letter I mention in my posts above as the then Secretary of State for Scotland was completely at odds with your position.<br /><br />Re the figures you quote I would be interested to know the source as I would like to compare the figures with Younger's own figures and his despair at how growth in Scotland was being suppressed by the "invisible spending reductions" and cancellation of Barnett on out of control local authority spending in England.<br /><br />Thanks for your interesting response. Enjoy your weekend.Tam Jardinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13530578680824358634noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1603438996450817644.post-82471606438380013542016-05-28T08:29:59.706-07:002016-05-28T08:29:59.706-07:00The Nationalist cause is an emotive one that the S...The Nationalist cause is an emotive one that the SNP tried to couple to economics. The reason is probably a simple one, its difficult to fight to be free when you are already free. The fight isn't for freedom it then it has to offer benefits and in todays World that tends to come down to being rewarded. <br /><br />I fear the SNP fear the consequence of being honest. Its a pity FFA wasn't established, forced upon the SNP now rather than as they proposed a time of their own choosing, as that would indeed make for an honest argument. The Nirvana basis for SNP led independence is dead, as I expect the prospects for the SNP are equally poor. As soon as independence becomes a discredited option then it is hard to see how the broad church that is the SNP can maintain its strangle hold on internal opinion that is very likely to fracture.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1603438996450817644.post-14487210591975655702016-05-26T03:35:08.361-07:002016-05-26T03:35:08.361-07:00Yes, the FT's on good form at the moment. I li...Yes, the FT's on good form at the moment. I liked this piece also on the collateral damage from Leave's loud assertions that any institution that contradicts or disputes their viewpoint must by definition be corrupt or biased. Also has some resonance with Indyref, I think.<br />http://on.ft.com/1WjgT7SRobinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12043169948404920679noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1603438996450817644.post-18412464033990055562016-05-26T00:55:25.617-07:002016-05-26T00:55:25.617-07:00I am constantly amazed at the similarities between...I am constantly amazed at the similarities between the current EU referendum and the independence referendum. Many of the themes and slogans are the same, albeit spouted by an entirely different segment of the population. All analyses in favour of staying the EU are 'scaremongering' brought about by corrupt institutions that take money from 'Brussels' [='Westminster']. All problems either do not exist or can be ignored so that 'sovereignty' can be restored.<br /><br />One of the best things I read recently was by the FT's Janan Ganesh, who wrote the following paragraph that could easily apply, with minimal editing, to most single issue political movements:<br />"There is a class of people in politics for the frisson of belief, for communion with the like-minded, for anything but the tedious amelioration of material life for most people. There are Remainers who think household finances too tawdry a theme for a campaign that should major on European civilisation and the epic sweep of history."<br />https://next.ft.com/content/1fe4e0ec-1e96-11e6-a7bc-ee846770ec15theamblerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01842086380447890404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1603438996450817644.post-41076436053822925872016-05-26T00:54:54.997-07:002016-05-26T00:54:54.997-07:00I am constantly amazed at the similarities between...I am constantly amazed at the similarities between the current EU referendum and the independence referendum. Many of the themes and slogans are the same, albeit spouted by an entirely different segment of the population. All analyses in favour of staying the EU are 'scaremongering' brought about by corrupt institutions that take money from 'Brussels' [='Westminster']. All problems either do not exist or can be ignored so that 'sovereignty' can be restored.<br /><br />One of the best things I read recently was by the FT's Janan Ganesh, who wrote the following paragraph that could easily apply, with minimal editing, to most single issue political movements:<br />"There is a class of people in politics for the frisson of belief, for communion with the like-minded, for anything but the tedious amelioration of material life for most people. There are Remainers who think household finances too tawdry a theme for a campaign that should major on European civilisation and the epic sweep of history."<br />https://next.ft.com/content/1fe4e0ec-1e96-11e6-a7bc-ee846770ec15theamblerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01842086380447890404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1603438996450817644.post-54396099147182353632016-05-24T00:28:00.403-07:002016-05-24T00:28:00.403-07:00There seems to me to be no issue where Sturgeon ca...There seems to me to be no issue where Sturgeon can be in agreement about the aims, but where she thinks a bit of division is also needed. Especially if it involves her Pavlovian enemies, the Tories and Treasury. This time, it's the EU Referendum. Miss Sturgeon is reported as disliking the UK Government's Remain campaign because she thinks it insults the intelligence of voters. She particularly dislikes Treasury reports that rubbish the case for Brexit.<br /><br />These views are, perhaps, not surprising. SNP policy on almost any issue is an insult to anyone's intelligence, and the economic case for independence, particularly so.<br /><br />Her motivations are, as always, self-centred and narcissistic. She doesn't like Treasury reports in the case of the EU Referendum because, if they prove to be effective there, then who knows, they might prove effective in damaging the case for Scottish independence in IndyRef2. After all, the economic case for the No vote was largely accurate, whereas the SNP economic case for a Yes vote was a mendacious work of fiction. Far better to damage the Remain campaign by turning up in London to try and give the Treasury dog a bad name (and possibly give Hosie a bit of stick on the side). To an Englishman, it looks like another pathetic attempt to try and scupper the Remain vote in rUK in order to bolster the case for IndyRef2.David Greennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1603438996450817644.post-90526352160282994072016-05-23T07:51:58.482-07:002016-05-23T07:51:58.482-07:00Tam, with respect, the rest of the UK already know...Tam, with respect, the rest of the UK already knows perfectly well that there is an alternative to rule by the elite for the elite. The challenge, as with most things, is to bring it about and in doing so not make everything far worse for ordinary people. There is no evidence that "many people" in Scotland are remotely ready to accept the decades of massive stringencies - tax hikes and cuts to public expenditure - that would be involved in creating this "new vibrant" progressive independent Scotland. Everybody loves a good vision until they are asked to make sacrifices for it, and then short-term self-interest takes over, just as much in Scotland as anywhere else in the UK. I don't deride your vision at all, while not sharing it, but frankly a vision is the easy bit. The pain and hard work is all in turning it into reality, when the bills actually have to be paid. When the current Scottish government can't even bring itself adopt a marginally higher tax rate (while holding a huge majority, still being part of the UK and massively subsidised/cushioned through Barnett) for fear of the potential repercussions, I wonder just how bold an independent (and much more economically vulnerable) Scotland would ever actually be. And just how far away the first practical steps will be towards making Scotland genuinely less dependent on rUK (=London), rather than just moaning about it, as well as setting the global benchmarks you believe it can. A very long way, I suspect.<br /><br />PS Cutting APD is not the best start to leading the world in respect of environmental concerns. And an exemplary ethical foreign policy may possible require being more diligent over the trade deals we do with certain companies in China.<br /><br />rocohamAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1603438996450817644.post-26451869382845133582016-05-21T09:24:05.784-07:002016-05-21T09:24:05.784-07:00"Blogger cujimmy said... (and Tam might like ..."Blogger cujimmy said... (and Tam might like to check these URL's too)<br />Still waiting on actual advice on how Scotland can reduce its deficit...<br />18 May 2016 at 06:12"<br />====================================================================================<br />CuJimmy, perhaps you should be looking at what a YES supporting economist suggests to fill the approx £9 billion scottish spending gap here ? Would Scots find paying more taxes and haveing more cuts accceptable ?<br />http://rattle.scot/how-to-answer-the-9-billion-question-over-independence<br /><br />Tam ...WM has hardly been "stopping" people coming to Scotland, most immigrants choose where they settle themselves ..could it be that many Scots Nationalists attitude to "Foreigners" (often seen on Social media) could be affecting them from settling here ?<br />The changing Scottish Demographics were always highlighted as a problem for an Indy Scotland <br />https://mainlymacro.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/scotland-and-snp-fooling-yourselves-and.html<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1603438996450817644.post-2803917185729956122016-05-20T19:25:59.775-07:002016-05-20T19:25:59.775-07:00rocoham
Thanks- I am not sure if I have made myse...rocoham<br /><br />Thanks- I am not sure if I have made myself unclear on the GERS thing. I find the figures confusing because there are items on that massive spreadsheet which I know not why they are there and others I simply do not know what they are for but that is my fault as I have not read up on the methodology. I would be happy to accept that they are produced by folk who know what they are about. <br /><br />I see a graph produced by Kevin showing Norway with a massive positive deficit to GDP ratio of +10% or whatever and this gentle curve down to Scotland- the diametric opposite at -10% suggesting we are the worst economic basketcase in the EU and I draw different conclusions from those intended. Firstly- I question if that can be the case and secondly I question how we have got in this situation. This is not to disparage Kevin: I think if anyone presents evidence that conveniently favours their case it is open to question and whilst I can believe we have a strong GDP the deficit figure of £15 billion (or rather whatever it was in 2014) I think is questionable to use in trying to paint a picture of the starting point for independence.<br /><br />Why? It is a little like judging the economy of one of the former soviet satellites- smaller components of a union get lumped with vast sums of spending they would not otherwise have had. We are a smallish resource rich country on the periphery of where you want to be in the world: Northern Europe. And yet when we are being judged we factor in for example the vast debt run up by westminster, our share of the 5th largest military budget in the world and not one, not two but 3 parliaments.<br /><br />Our expenditure waaaay exceeds what is reasonable for a country our size for these reasons so I would suggest that whilst perhaps Kevin's graph is accurate it is unrealistic to consider this position as our starting point. It would be our finishing point as billions and billions of expenditure would simply cease being on day 1.<br /><br />On the cabinet papers- check out PREM 19/1922. You could look at a couple of letters- Page 155 begins George Younger's letter where he displays his exasperation having conceded "invisible spending reductions" and suspension of the Barnett formula only to be faced with a further "needs assessment", sent days before he is moved into Defence. You could read Malcolm Rifkind's bemused letter, early on and new to the job amazed at the concessions made by his predecessor (page 127). I am vexed as the 2 docs I wanted you to see (the smoking gun) are in PREM 19-1453 which I think I had to pay for (from an older archive) where the treasury bares its teeth. Let me know if you are interested and I can send it somewhere.<br /><br />I agree with you that we need to look forward but if we don't examine the past we are doomed to make the same mistakes. Why has Chilcott bothered writing a report? Iraq is in the past etc etc. Water under the bridge this stuff may be but that doesn't mean the truth should be concealed. Dead or old treasury chief secretaries and their staff from the eighties are impossible to be angry with and it would be pointless to do so anyway. <br /><br />I and many others have a vision for this country and it may seem dewy eyed or unrealistic to some but I genuinely believe this project could be the best thing to happen to Europe. Imagine a new vibrant country emerging and leading the way in terms of human rights, renewable energy, environmental concerns and ethical foreign policy. We can start again and shed the baggage of grievance and the cringe, shed the animosity and actually show the rest of the UK that there is an alternative to rule by the elite for the elite. God knows the people of England, Wales and Northern Ireland need someone to show the way.<br />Tam Jardinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13530578680824358634noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1603438996450817644.post-57339025220750780322016-05-20T15:44:35.114-07:002016-05-20T15:44:35.114-07:00In response to Tam Jardine:
You do agree that Cy...In response to Tam Jardine:<br /><br /><b> You do agree that Cyprus, or Malta, or France's deficit to GDP ratio is more easy to calculate accurately than Scotland, aye? </b><br /><br />There are fewer estimates that need to be made calculating an independent state's finances. But I'm not sure that's a point a nationalist should be making. Who calculates GERS? The SNP government. If they are forced to estimate some figures, are they like to over or under estimate? I'd say that the figures produced by an SNP government are more likely to favour Scotland than the rest of the UK. <br /><br /><b>Number 2- Scotland's population through the second half of the 20th century (from a list of 229 countries and territories in the entire world) has suffered from the second worst growth: only better than a tiny island that was half destroyed by volcanic eruption and flattened by a hurricane. You don't dispute that as it is indisputable. I am suggesting that a population not just in relative decline compared to her neighbours but in actual decline over that period has been badly governed. Do you dispute that?</b><br /><br />Scotland's population went from 5.1 million in 1951 to 5.3 million in 2011. <br /><br />I think you are making a false comparison (not deliberately). Moving between sovereign states is difficult. Moving from one part of a sovereign state to another is not. The world population has increased and so the population of every sovereign state has increased. But many countries have had significant internal migration that has reduced the population of individual regions/provinces/countries.<br /><br />For example, West Virginia has suffered an absolute decline in population over the same period, from 2 million in 1950 to 1.8 million now.<br /><br />Several of Spain's autonomous communities have also suffered declines. Extramadura went from 1.38 million in 1960 to 1.11 million now.<br /><br />Abruzzo in Italy had a population of 1.28 million in 1951, by 2001 it had declined to 1.26 million, although it has recovered since to 1.34 million.<br /><br />Scotland's slow population growth isn't unique when measured against other sub-national territories.<br /><br /><b>Number 3- Westminster and "our tory masters" as I put it were conducting a concerted campaign throughout their tenure from 1979 to reduce significantly the block grant in Scotland and in doing so killed growth in the Scottish economy through invisible reductions and cancelling Barnett consequentials. </b><br /><br />Barnett has always been tinkered with because otherwise it would have increased the differential Scotland receives even further. Scotland went from having 70% of EU per capita income in the early 1970s to 100% today. There is little doubt amongst experts who have studied Barnett that it delivers more cash to Scotland than a needs based formula would. <br /><br />According to the SNP government's figures going back to 1980, Scotland's share of UK spending was 8.46% in 1980. It then increased to an average of 8.72%, and didn't fall below the 1980 level until 2008. It hit a peak of 8.83% in 1988, declined slightly before reaching more than 9% in 1997. So any changes your "tory masters" made in the 80s at worst only reduced the rate of growth in Scottish spending relative to the rest of the UK, they actually continued to increase Scottish spending faster than overall UK spending.User512https://www.blogger.com/profile/10568930730248085722noreply@blogger.com