tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1603438996450817644.post7095677588099532678..comments2024-01-12T01:56:21.933-08:00Comments on chokka blog: Joan McAlpine in the Daily RecordKevin Haguehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14587343060415859159noreply@blogger.comBlogger44125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1603438996450817644.post-19496117117060742592015-12-17T14:12:39.425-08:002015-12-17T14:12:39.425-08:00IH, I’m sorry you found my comments a diversion fr...IH, I’m sorry you found my comments a diversion from the topic under discussion; they were certainly not meant to be. And thank you for the example of a political reason for voting for independence – if I understand it aright I guess a Scotland separated from the UK’s ridiculous pretensions to be a world power could indeed make what you seek more likely, although in practice a great deal would actually depend on the Holyrood government of the day (where the absence of any substantial checks and balances worries me) not getting – ahem – “aroused” by the possibility of playing a military role in world affairs. The temptation to cosy up to the great and powerful appears so hard for our leaders to resist… In other words, if such ambitions were clearly written into a national constitution backed by legal redress I would have some faith in them; I would not expect them to arise naturally from the state of independence on its own nor to be automatically sustained by it.<br /><br />Which sort of takes me back to Joan McAlpine and my point, which is that the white paper made a great number of claims for what independence would deliver. Its supporters are now suddenly claiming that this was only the basis for discussion rather than a promise, but this was not at all how it was sold at the time. Its wishful thinking about the economic picture for an independent Scotland, together with some scurrilous misrepresentation of how much Scotland was being done down as part of the Union, together with a cavalier dismissal of the potential difficulties that might be faced en route, all added up to a firm promise, a vow in fact, that we would all be better off financially as a separate country without a hitch on the way. Joan McAlpine continues to trot out these falsehoods even now. So I, along with many others, was and remain critical that such an irresponsibly rose-tinted picture was and still is being presented. <br /><br />But, at least it was a picture, it made an attempt to fit a number of the pieces of the jigsaw together. Where I’m struggling (it’s not you, it’s me) is with people who argue for independence on principle as if the jigsaw of everyday life like jobs and education would somehow then assemble itself perfectly, or who – like yourself? – have a valid reason to vote for independence and as long as that piece is in place have no interest in the rest. I don’t say either of these views are misplaced, just that they are not mine. For me, independence has to represent a means not an end in itself. IT has to work in practice, politically, socially and economically. Self-governance is no better or worse than any other form of governance unless it demonstrably delivers benefits, creates a better society and/or a better world however that is defined. And assuming that a form of representative democracy is the continuing state of things, it is safe to assume that even in an independent Scotland there will be a significant number who can still claim they are not getting the government they voted for, so I am unsure at what scale the innate virtues of independence are presumed to begin and end. [Given the very evident centralising tendencies of the current Scottish government it appears that to them self-governance means only the separation of powers between Scotland and rUK, certainly not empowerment at a local level within Scotland itself.]<br /><br />So I would argue that whatever rationale someone puts forward for independence they should be obliged to back it up with evidence that it could work in practice for the greater good. What the desired greater good might be should arguably be the first conversation Scotland should be holding with itself, and only then should the best means to achieve it be assessed. Which might be independence, or it might not.<br /> <br />PS On my use of the word “catastrophe”, I actually don’t think it’s that much of an exaggeration. If Scotland had voted to pursue independence based on the white paper, it would now be facing the prospect of severe and long-term economic hardship, if not ruin. There was no Plan B.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1603438996450817644.post-56227215634576981372015-12-15T15:02:35.890-08:002015-12-15T15:02:35.890-08:00OK let me try again...
here is my original post as...OK let me try again...<br />here is my original post as best asi I can remember (i will try and press publish this time).<br /><br />Firstly i would like to thank Kevin for his really excellent Blog - i don't know where he finds the time to research all this data.<br /><br />Some of the articles in this thread were interesting and its good to see some "yes" opinions expressed<br />My position has always been that my heart yearns for independence but my head rules it out, every time i look at the data.<br /><br />There are a couple of point I would like to add - An independent Scotland does not necessarily have to be the one that the SNP has - we could for example rent out the Trident base for millions and keep the jobs. Independence does not have to comply with the current SNP vision.<br />My main concern is that vision. - while they have every right to express it what I really object to is the dishonesty in never addressing the real issues.<br />If we want to address austerity (whatever that actually means) can we please define what it is? <br />having done that can we discuss in pound and pence or is it groats or euros what this will cost,<br />once we know that , lets then define how we are going to pay for it - we cannot just soak the rich- there are not enough of them to pay for it<br />I have a european IT job and i work from home in east lothian and I am happy to pay my taxes but could do my job elsewhere if the tax burden becomes unreasonable.<br />The reality is that the government is funded by standard rate tax payer and higher rate tax payers most of whom would not be paying higher rate if that band had historically moved in line with inflation across the UK in 2014 some 4.4million people now pay the 40p rate, up from just 3.02million when the Coalition was to power and 1.35million in 1988<br /><br />Having said all that i would like a breakdown of where we are in terms of the countries books<br />If we become independent what would the first budget look like and the next ...<br />what will that mean to the tax we pay and the services we get - what currency will we use ?<br />If i get all this information my head can try and understand it and my heart can decide if I want to pay for itErichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07817913970115011044noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1603438996450817644.post-76409765567915021062015-12-14T06:53:21.036-08:002015-12-14T06:53:21.036-08:00Eric - well I received this one.
I moderate for s...Eric - well I received this one.<br /><br />I moderate for spam and abuse so unless you were guilty of either of those then no, haven't received any other commentKevin Haguehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14587343060415859159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1603438996450817644.post-23050635232669636922015-12-13T22:54:33.129-08:002015-12-13T22:54:33.129-08:00did you receive my comment?did you receive my comment?Erichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07817913970115011044noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1603438996450817644.post-61287590147272386012015-12-11T01:45:38.774-08:002015-12-11T01:45:38.774-08:00Rocoham,
This is again an entirely different set ...Rocoham,<br /><br />This is again an entirely different set of questions; worthy of attention no doubt, but of no relevance to the point I thought we were discussing. That point was - I thought - at least connected to the OP, but answering these fully would completely derail the thread, something I am keen to avoid.<br /><br />A couple of quick points:<br /><br />- From the claim that the economic case for independence as presented was unsound, we are still a number of argumentative steps from your claim that independence would necessarily have caused "catastrophic damage". I am still uncertain about what would have happened, what resources we would have had to deal with, what decisions would have been made about where cuts would fall, how and on whom to increase tax burdens, and the like.<br />- The distinction between economic and political questions is, I think, a useful one, and not an evasion; nor is it difficult to grasp. To give just one of many examples, the question of how best to avoid becoming implicated in the commission of another international crime in the future weighed heavily on my mind in deciding how to vote (as I'm sure it did on many others). There are of course economic elements to this question, but they were not the elements that featured in my reasoning in this regard.<br /><br />I do not yet know how the relatively new (to me) information about the economic case presented will factor into my future thinking; I haven't had time to digest it fully yet, nor I am certain of precisely what it entitles us to claim. But given that I hope it will be a good long while before we are asked the question again (although remaining pro-independence at present, I am also pro-respecting-legitimate-democratic-decisions), I have time.<br /><br />Imbecile Heureuxnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1603438996450817644.post-71034891816249498802015-12-11T01:08:22.081-08:002015-12-11T01:08:22.081-08:00rocoham,
Imbecile Heureux also stated that anothe...rocoham,<br /><br />Imbecile Heureux also stated that another reason for voting Yes was "if we couldn't afford the current level of public spend in an independent Scotland, then we are probably spending more than is justifiable anyway."<br /><br />That is intellectually honest and as far removed from fantasy as you can get. We can agree or disagree with it, but it doesn't fly in the face of reality.theamblerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01842086380447890404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1603438996450817644.post-28794852217134659042015-12-10T17:53:22.327-08:002015-12-10T17:53:22.327-08:00Imbecile Heureux , I'd like to say how refresh...<br />Imbecile Heureux , I'd like to say how refreshing it is to see a Yes supporter here who is being honest , truly considerate of the issues and not merely being obstructive.<br />(its not the norm, most that i come into contact with don't in the slightest appear to engage with the financial aspects AT ALL and that for me is deeply worrying , considering the crazy figures i'm seeing.)<br /><br />I think you have highlighted something that was mentioned yesterday, that we are getting some benefits potentially beyond RUK via barnett agreement for block grant (currently in negotiation though). It was pointed out that the Forth Road Bridge Tolls were scrapped when they used to raise more than £12M annually, no tolls now in Scotland whereas elsewhere in UK there are many Toll bridges and Tunnels. I think Kevin may have this in mind when he has the time to write another Blog.<br /><br />As far as further education is concerned, i don't think theres any hard proof that money coming via barnett is subsidising free Uni education directly, it may be argued that is being paid by direct taxation from Scotland and Barnet money is merely being used to pay for all the "extra costs" for those higher rural costs we incur..not sure its complicated for sure.<br /><br />You might want to read this link to seeing as how it was written by a REAL academic economist without an axe to grind on any issue.<br />http://mainlymacro.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/scotland-and-snp-fooling-yourselves-and.html <br />It still seems to me far too few Scots really don't understand the financial situation that they would be in if it had been a YES vote and there would have been serious unrest when they really found out because it wasn't what they were being promised, this is the issue of blindly trusting Politicians chasing a dream first and a sensible budget strategy only as a afterthought consideration.<br />This link was a warning http://www.economicsuk.com/blog/002120.html<br /><br /><br /> <br /><br /><br /><br />Jock Tamsons Bairnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17363965238997914283noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1603438996450817644.post-55566816729318413122015-12-10T09:30:37.196-08:002015-12-10T09:30:37.196-08:00IH, yes, we're on separate logical pages, I ca...IH, yes, we're on separate logical pages, I can see. I, for example cannot understand you when you say "My own reasons for voting yes were largely political". What does that mean? It sounds like those people who say they support independence "in principle", as though that absolved them of the responsibility of thinking about and planning for its real-life consequences for real people (apart from themselves). Or of respecting that others may disagree, or that the greater good may not in fact lie in the principle they hold so dear. That doesn't appear to be your position, though, so what "largely political" reasons motivated you? And how are they distinct from economic, or social or any other sort of reason? And if political, how are they unconnected to the catastrophic collateral damage a Yes result would have caused? To "remain pro-independence" as the full picture of just how much ordinary Scots would have suffered if Yes had prevailed seems (at least to me) at odds with your concern for social justice.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1603438996450817644.post-6212701543656835322015-12-10T05:06:39.941-08:002015-12-10T05:06:39.941-08:00Rocoham,
I am still not following. Whether or not...Rocoham,<br /><br />I am still not following. Whether or not we vote for the Tories doesn't - obviously at least - impact upon the question of the moral justifiability of Scotland providing significant welfare benefits to its middle and upper classes that are not enjoyed, but subsidised, by the English taxpayer.<br /><br />As to the poor Scottish taxpayer, I would first say that that is an entirely different question, but certainly one worth exploring in much greater detail. I have no tribal commitment to universal free university education (although the problems you identify seem to me to have come not from that policy itself, but the simultaneous decimation of maintenance grants). But I am certainly open to persuasion that the policy as currently operating is unfair.Imbecile Heureuxnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1603438996450817644.post-87867805860898462152015-12-10T04:59:36.683-08:002015-12-10T04:59:36.683-08:00Anonymous,
Thanks for the links; I will watch the...Anonymous,<br /><br />Thanks for the links; I will watch the videos with interest.<br /><br />I'm not really following how the information presented in the first link addresses my worry, which is specifically that the rest of the UK appears to be subsidising the provision of a raft of benefits to the upper and middle classes in Scotland which are not enjoyed even by the lower classes in England and Wales. This seems to me a morally objectionable transfer of wealth (and probably amounts to significantly more than "slightly subsidised education": if things remain the same, and both my kids go to university, I (or my family) will receive a subsidy of some £54,000 that is simply not available to anyone in England). As I said, I cannot see why this is an argument against independence (as it relies on the perpetuation of a morally objectionable state of affairs).<br /><br />I have a fairly low opinion of politicians in general, but am not well placed to assess the relative strengths of different economic claims without a detailed engagement with the arguments put forward by both sides (and time is a commodity I lack at the moment). My own reasons for voting yes were largely political, combined with the fact that, if we couldn't afford the current level of public spend in an independent Scotland, then we are probably spending more than is justifiable anyway. <br />Imbecile Heureuxnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1603438996450817644.post-11720715262531517972015-12-10T03:16:53.175-08:002015-12-10T03:16:53.175-08:00IH, I would say don't vote the Tories in next ...IH, I would say don't vote the Tories in next time, we get the government we elect, for better or worse. In return, perhaps you can tell me what you would say to a poor Scottish taxpayer who suddenly realises that those same higher education subsidies are disproportionately benefiting the more prosperous middle classes and widening the inequality gap in Scotland. And who asks why more poorer students are going into higher education in England than in Scotland.<br /><br />http://rattle.scot/exclusive-inequality-the-establishment-and-student-funding<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1603438996450817644.post-25845808956804061262015-12-09T16:54:07.875-08:002015-12-09T16:54:07.875-08:00Theambler,
No need for a reference; your first po...Theambler,<br /><br />No need for a reference; your first point seems plausible enough to me. But it doesn't address my worry at all, as far as I can see, which has to do with more robust welfare provisions in one part of the UK, and the transfer of wealth from (amongst others) the poor in other parts to sustain this.<br /><br />You say you have no problem with the current arrangement. But I can't see how the fact that London subsidizes the same level of welfare provison in the rest of England makes it OK that it also subsidizes e.g. free higher education in Scotland. I suppose my question would be: what would you respond to a relatively poor English taxpayer, who thought this unfair and demanded that this subsidy cease? <br /><br />My worry, in a nutshell, is that I am not at all sure how I could respond.Imbecile Heureuxnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1603438996450817644.post-17227392305124312322015-12-09T13:21:36.642-08:002015-12-09T13:21:36.642-08:00Imbecile Heureux (and theambler)
http://researchbr...<br />Imbecile Heureux (and theambler)<br />http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN04033/SN04033.pdf<br /><br />I suggest you both copy and paste the link above into another browser window and look at the pages of table inside, its not just simple "England subsidises Scotland" etc . there are lots of "in balancing" between actual regions of England too<br />Whats clear for a start is that Welsh and Northern Irish Taxes aren't coming to Scotland and why of course should they as they have the same rural expenses to cover as we do. The larger cities and more populated regions are the ones that are economically more effective to provide services to. It's of course just a numbers game, less tarmac to maintain, less miles to hospitals , nearer to ambulances. Fire services etc . <br />I think when your getting down to worrying about the fact you might be getting slightly subsided education ect you over worrying, you have to remember individuals don't "see this money" themselves it government services that gets them, you could potentially say "my kids have more hardship as they have to walk further to school than english kids. Maybe maybe not but hardly in the third world are we. <br /><br />When you look at the overall numbers between regions, at the most its a few hundred pounds and often less than that, spread over a year thats not a lot of differnce per individual to eb worth bothering about but at the macro level its important to councils running services with millions of people to cater for.<br /><br />(I do get your point but you are always going to get some imbalances somewhere in the system as its almost impossible to treat every individual's personal need to thet level but have to manange things by area or region only.)<br /><br />As a YES voter I'd like your views on those SNP Politicians who say they will grow the "scottish deficit gap" (a gap of 16% of spending budget) when they stated on the White paper that "a good rate of expected growth would be 3.6% of the economy over a measured period of 30 years" (0.6% per year) ie we need 16% so roughly 4 x 30 years = 120 years is the period we are talking about (and that is even if economic conditions allow it) A little unrealistic is it not and in the meantime we have to borrow via debt markets to fill a spending budget that also would need servicing by fees too.<br />This economic growth figure is presented in Kevin's video presentations which i presume you have already watched ? link here to copy into browser if you haven't <br />http://chokkablog.blogspot.co.uk/2015/07/chokkablog-videos.html <br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1603438996450817644.post-23229152020293271602015-12-09T07:16:21.816-08:002015-12-09T07:16:21.816-08:00Imbecile Heureux,
I'm afraid I cannot recall ...Imbecile Heureux,<br /><br />I'm afraid I cannot recall where I read this or the quality of the source, but overwhelmingly London, as opposed to England as a whole, subsidises the rest of the UK. Scotland doesn't do too badly compared with many English regions. I have no problem with the current arrangement.<br /><br />I do find it highly regrettable that the SNP talk a big game about how awful Westminster is and how badly Scotland does from Union when the numbers say otherwise. I speculate that when next years GERS come out and this reality is revealed in it's full splendour, there is going to be real complaints in England about this. I expect SNP strategists will be happy with this; anything that weakens the Union and sows division is fine with them.theamblerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01842086380447890404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1603438996450817644.post-64506654610779552802015-12-09T02:21:52.300-08:002015-12-09T02:21:52.300-08:00Thanks for this blog, and the others you have writ...Thanks for this blog, and the others you have written on this subject. I am a "yes" voter, and remain pro-independence, but I have no interest in unsound arguments for that position; and this and other posts have more or less persuaded me that the economic case for independence as presented was unsound.<br /><br />I have a broader worry - and it is a genuine worry - about the position advanced here, however: I have difficulty seeing it as an argument against independence. If it is true that public spending in Scotland is being massively subsidised by the rest of the UK, then this begins to look like a morally unjustifiable transfer of wealth from the lower classes in England and Wales to the upper and middle classes in Scotland (I have in mind here in particular the flagship universal benefits: higher education, prescriptions, etc.; although a similar worry would apply should, for example, parts of the NHS in England and Wales be privatised while remaining public in Scotland).<br /><br />I can see how "pooling and sharing" might be used to justify those elements of the extra public spend in Scotland that have to do with, e.g. some of the geographic difficulties of service provision up here; but it is much less clear that, for example, a portion of English or Welsh taxes should be spent on the higher education of my children, when this is not reciprocated. However, if right (and I may well be wrong), this has troubling implications for the justifiability of Scotland pursuing a distinct (and more robust) set of welfare policies whilst remaining in the UK. Both sides, it seems to me, risk being caught between an economic rock and a moral hard place.Imbecile Heureuxnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1603438996450817644.post-61362023185341061982015-12-08T12:59:58.879-08:002015-12-08T12:59:58.879-08:00Looking at the "Pooling and Sharing " gr...<br />Looking at the "Pooling and Sharing " graph, then by chopping up all the parts where we supposedly paid into the UK "massively" in the 1980's and fitting them into the areas under the line where we were net beneficiaries at other periods it still does appear that we have done rather well from the arrangement as it can been seen we alreadly benefitted overall and we are now going into another sparce Oil revenue period where we are going to benefit from the arrangement yet again.<br /><br />This Document linked here too shows how well the "Rural" regions of Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales all benefit from being part of the overall Union. Its beyond belief that any polical party would argue otherwise, so any alternate view seems to be all about "being better for the SNP and the people in power" than "Better for Scotland and its general population" <br /><br />http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN04033/SN04033.pdfAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1603438996450817644.post-9793094781529012862015-12-08T10:33:59.521-08:002015-12-08T10:33:59.521-08:00I hope you and your readers enjoyed Peter Jones...I hope you and your readers enjoyed Peter Jones' vigorous attack on SNP economics in the Scotsman today. The projected budget deficits going forward, post-independence, are increasingly eye-watering. The SNP messages are also at odds with each other. Thus we have Swinney threatening, yet again, to block the Scotland Bill when it reaches Holyrood because the proposed alteration to the Barnett formula consequent upon devolution might result in less income to the Scottish Government. So his flagship solution is independence, which will eliminate the Barnett transfer at a stroke in its entirety. It reminds me of Blazing Saddles ("Give me the money or I'll shoot myself"). This is the guy currently making a laughing stock of the Scottish Government by running the Forth Bridge so badly that it is now closed. Meanwhile, his narcissistic boss is running around pretending to be a Head of State. Keep up the good work, Kevin.David GREENnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1603438996450817644.post-50297069425951330652015-12-07T11:19:11.098-08:002015-12-07T11:19:11.098-08:00Mr Anonymous reminds me of the previous poster who...<br /><br />Mr Anonymous reminds me of the previous poster who used the analogy of "Zombies", its a common trait of Nationalists ...use anything other than the facts to attack the issue and instead provide a diversion to avoid seeing the truth that you don't want to beleive.<br /><br />They really really don't seem to understand its "Oil Revenues" that matter much more than Oil Price which in itself is only one variable out of many that affect Scottish Government overall income from Oil.<br /><br />Both BP and Total now expect low Oil prices to last to 2016 and beyond perhaps even falling to mid $20's mark which of course will squeeze "Oil Revenues" even more than now. It was said some time ago that $45-$55 a barrel just doesn't work in the North Sea https://www.energyvoice.com/oilandgas/86268/sir-ian-wood-warns-uk-would-be-biggest-loser-from-decline-in-oil-price/ <br /><br />The Supply glut in Oil could last till 2050 and scupper any further attempts by the SNP to fool the nation again by trying to provide figures that have to be viewed with very rose tinted spectacles for a second time http://scottishpatriots.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/is-snp-led-indy-2-referendum-finally.htmlJock Tamsons Bairnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17363965238997914283noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1603438996450817644.post-14087364556716973612015-12-07T10:23:17.503-08:002015-12-07T10:23:17.503-08:00Kevin I love your blog and the truth it speaks, as...Kevin I love your blog and the truth it speaks, as a Scot living in England I cannot believe the lies the SNP come out with and think the Scottish people will believe it. In England my friends business and otherwise have always been very clear on Scottish independence they could not really care less one way or another then say, but best all being together with the final comment if you decide to go you 100% go no ties no crying when Tax goes up you have to borrow our Air Force when the Russians are bombing the oil fields etc. etc. So its not a big deal to them much more important things to worry about globally and sitting down here you can see the whole thing very clear without the lies the Daily Record allows to be written or Sturgeon spouts.<br />To reinforce the comment about the English people not really caring you only have to look at their apathy towards free tuition fees, prescriptions etc. they do not care if it was the other way round the Scots would almost be invading England and how dare they have that privilege. <br /><br />Please keep up the good work and I appreciate the time it takes from your business to write these blogs just to state the truth.Shanksienoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1603438996450817644.post-25009165769593321552015-12-06T09:08:10.586-08:002015-12-06T09:08:10.586-08:00Unfortunately there is something so scientology li...Unfortunately there is something so scientology like with Mr. Anonymous. I guess it's a form of nationalism. Jim Robertsonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1603438996450817644.post-11494515676940963072015-12-06T08:33:01.864-08:002015-12-06T08:33:01.864-08:00Anonymous: if you want to use proportionally corre...Anonymous: if you want to use proportionally correct figures in the analogy (which is a fair point) then its not 2.0m vs 1.75m as you claims. Rainfall = oil revenue in the analogy (temperature being price)<br /><br />If your 2m is the Scot Gov high scenario (£7.9bn) then in March 2014 - 6 months before the referendum, and around the time the Scottish Government had re-forecast oil revenues to still support the White Paper (which they continued to defend as "conservative") - the OBR were forecasting £3.1bn ... so 3.1/7.9x2 = 0.78m<br /><br />If your 2m is the low scenario (an unfair comparison as OBR is a single therefore mid-point forecast) then the correct figure 3.1/6.8x2 = 0.91m<br /><br />I guess to be fair we should take the mid point: you forecast 2m of rain, I forecast 0.9m.<br /><br />The most generous interpretation for your case is if we use the £3.9bn OBR forecast in Dec 13 (White Paper was published in November) so you get 3.9/[(7.6+6.8)/2] x 2 = 1.1m.<br /><br />So your assertion that the correct relativity is 2.0m to 1.75m is absolute horse-shit. Of course you've done that because you are determined to only look at price forecasts not revenue forecasts. Which is the point I have been making all along.<br /><br />Using our analogy - you're making assertions about the relative difference between the temperature assumptions used not the rainfall forecasts - thereby confirming beyond all <br />doubt that you've completely missed the entire point.<br /><br />Bravo.Kevin Haguehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14587343060415859159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1603438996450817644.post-74907560266813067862015-12-06T07:54:57.821-08:002015-12-06T07:54:57.821-08:00Fucking hell "anonymous" you are the mos...Fucking hell "anonymous" you are the most persistently obtuse person I have come across in a while. This blog (both this post and the others where I have touched on this topic) consistently makes the point that it's the revenue forecast that matters not the price forecast.<br /><br />To quote from the <a href="http://chokkablog.blogspot.co.uk/2014/12/oil-gas-will-we-ever-learn.html" rel="nofollow">Post I made in 2014</a><br /><br /><i>The first and most obvious point worth making is that nobody predicted a price crash to today's levels. There are a lot of data points on the chart below but the overall message is simple - the price levels used in the White Paper (blue line) were at the high end of available forecasts at the time but no forecasts were as low as the prices we are now experiencing and expecting (the black line)</i><br /><br />[Look at the graph in that post before asserting this statement isn't true.]<br /><br />So I have always been clear that the <i>price</i> forecast was within reasonable bounds, it's the revenue forecast (as per the post above) that I and many others have consistently taken issue with before and after the referendum.<br /><br />You assert it's the price forecast that's constantly attacked. No. It. Is. Not. The SNP's response to criticism of the revenue forecast is to talk about the price forecast as you are doing.<br /><br />Its a transparently pathetic attempt to distract from the central issue - the SNP chose to ignore the OBR and used revenue forecasts that were transparently unrealistic <i>at the time the White Paper was written</i>.<br /><br />Again I implore you to read the blog post that you're responding to - you risk looking like a dribbling idiot when you assert that the article above these comments only talks about the price - if you read the fucking thing you'd know that the point I make is it's *not* price that matters as much as *profit* - follow the link to my article rebutting <a href="http://chokkablog.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/the-masters-of-spin.html" rel="nofollow">Kevin Pringle</a> if you're still struggling with that. In that article I say:<br /><br /><i>He's relying on the fact that the casual reader will accept this elision, will allow North Sea revenue forecasts and oil price forecasts to be conflated into being effectively the same thing. Well they're not, as we'll come on to see<br />[...]<br />What he's actually asserting is that the White Paper oil price assumption of $110 a barrel was at the low end of the DECC assumptions that existed at the time. This is correct - I pointed out as much myself a year ago in "Oil & Gas: When Will We Ever Learn" - but it's not the same price assumption as the OBR were using. In March 2013 (fully 8 months before the White Paper was published) the OBR was assuming $97 for 2016-17 (revised to $97.4 in the OBR's Dec 2013 forecast)<br /><br />But <b>there'a bigger issue here</b>. By focusing the reader's attention on the oil price assumptions he's distracting us from the actual oil tax revenue assumption. What's often overlooked here is that it's profit from North Sea production that is taxed by HMRC2 - so to get from oil price to North Sea tax revenue you also have to make assumptions about oil production volumes, production costs (hence profitability) and of course effective tax rates. So there are a lot of other assumptions we'd have to understand before we could judge whether the White Paper was in line with "Westminster" assumptions.</i><br /><br />Now please in the name of all that's good and holy ... read and think before repeating the same nonsense.<br /><br />Cheers<br />Kevin Haguehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14587343060415859159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1603438996450817644.post-62483754305695684632015-12-06T06:29:46.344-08:002015-12-06T06:29:46.344-08:00Anonymous, It Doesn't Matter what other foreca...Anonymous, It Doesn't Matter what other forecasts existed and how much more wrong any one of them was than the White Paper. It really doesn't. What matters is that the Scottish Government deliberately chose to ignore completely the most cautious forecast available to them - apparently for no better reason than it was an outlier - and pitch an entire country's long-term prospects ("Scotland's Future") solely on off-the-peg forecasts that provided a suitably rosy economic picture. The fact that the OBR forecasting had often been wrong by being too optimistic (ie its figures might if anything err on the high side) does not seem to have struck the authors of the white paper as worth considering. They do not appear to have asked what assumptions and data the OBR had been working from. There was no caution, no contingency planning, no responsibility to the people of Scotland, just a wilful blindness to anything that didn't fit the Independence Will Be Perfect narrative (see also EU, Currency Union, etc). The SNP should have exercised far better diligence before putting so many people's interests on the line; that they did not is either incompetent or criminal.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1603438996450817644.post-23598482410022705782015-12-06T06:14:14.319-08:002015-12-06T06:14:14.319-08:001 Because it's the oil price forecast on which...1 Because it's the oil price forecast on which the SNP are constantly attacked. In all the comparisons with the OBR in the blog, it's the price you've talked about.<br /><br />2 Let me put it another way. Which of ITEM (Independent Treasury Economic Model), Ernst & Young Eurozone Forecast, DECC Fossil Fuel Price Projections, Economist Intelligence Unit, and the US Energy Information Administration, should they have ignored, and what would be the grounds for doing so?<br /><br />3 Your analogy is deeply flawed: a more relevant one would be to say that I forecast 2m, you forecast 1.75m, and what we got after an unprecedented and unpredicted drought was just less than 1m (these figures being roughly in proportion to the SG, OBR and present figures). That 1.75m figure wasn't arrived at by foreknowledge of the drought: it was just at the lower end of predictions from the assumptions we were all working to at that time. Had the drought (unprecedented and unpredicted) not occurred, there's nothing to suggest that the lower figure would have been the accurate one.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1603438996450817644.post-21805093140587366782015-12-06T05:25:12.701-08:002015-12-06T05:25:12.701-08:00Anonymous - your persistent determination to miss ...Anonymous - your persistent determination to miss the point here is strangely compelling to watch.<br /><br />1. Why do you act as if the price forecast is all that matters when its the revenue forecast that was so indefensible? Revenue is a function of price, extraction costs & production volumes as well as prevailing tax rates - by fixating on price you're conveniently ignoring all the other assumptions which cumulatively produced a ridiculous pair of scenarios. But if you actually read the post you're commenting on you'd know that. Try it some time. <br /><br />2. With respect, I think you might not understand what the OBR is and the role it plays in ensuring responsible budgets are used by the government of the day. By ignoring the OBR (their *revenue* forecast - stop fixating only on the *price* forecast) the White Paper and the Yes campaign were - by definition - irresponsible.<br /><br />3. Maybe an analogy will help here. I forecast there's going be 5 mm of rainfall next week and you forecast there's going to be 2 metres. If in fact there's then only 1mm of rainfall, that doesn't make us both equally wrong. If you'd argued that we'd be able to rely on that 2 metres of rainfall for our crop irrigation then you'd have been made to look like a completely irresponsible idiot. To defend your ridiculous forecast by saying "but we both used similar assumptions about average temperatures" would make you look like you are desperately trying to defend the indefensible by focusing on one input assumption instead of the actual forecasts we made.<br /><br />I will only post further comments from you if you demonstrate that you have read the blog and this comment and are engaging whatever critical faculties you have at your disposal <br /> Kevin Haguehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14587343060415859159noreply@blogger.com