tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1603438996450817644.post1103902728676533846..comments2024-01-12T01:56:21.933-08:00Comments on chokka blog: The Price of IndependenceKevin Haguehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14587343060415859159noreply@blogger.comBlogger45125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1603438996450817644.post-58938917966149067492016-03-29T05:57:25.199-07:002016-03-29T05:57:25.199-07:00Grendal's obsession with the OBR simply reflec...Grendal's obsession with the OBR simply reflects their need to blame Westminster institutions for everything. Even if the OBR was incompetent (and there is no reason to think they were given the unpredictability of oil revenue), it was incumbent on the Scottish Government to work that out and use a superior source. They cannot accept that the Scottish Government is responsible for its own predictions.<br /><br />I am amused they they quote the FT when it says "The OBR has itself stressed that forecasting oil revenues is notoriously difficult given the complex interplay of production levels, energy prices and capital investment by companies." How does this help their case, when the White Paper presented two generous scenarios for oil revenue and did not countenance the possibility of lower revenue?theamblerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01842086380447890404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1603438996450817644.post-67387207851812609342016-03-29T05:06:28.524-07:002016-03-29T05:06:28.524-07:00I don't know how you do it Kevin, I honestly d...I don't know how you do it Kevin, I honestly don't. In the face of people who regurgitate nonsense they've been fed by the SNP or their propagandists, it's no surprise you sometimes lose the rag. Yet still you keep sticking your head above the parapet.<br /><br />I and many others are grateful that you carry on exposing the fiction that YeSNP peddled to the Scottish electorate. We can only hope that, eventually, enough will see through the tissue of lies, halftruths and misinformation. Some, like Grendal, look to be completely lost to all reason and evidence.<br /><br />Unfortunately, I have little confidence that this is going to happen any time soon. It's like our very own radicalisation has taken place (fortunately verbal, not violent) - and this will take some time (and a lot of effort from people like yourself) for this to be effectively countered. <br /><br />What will it take? The Quebec Effect to really take hold? Even then, the Nats will probably refer to investment levels from 2004/05 or summit..... <br /><br />Andy Thompsonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1603438996450817644.post-2563970612589563522016-03-29T03:22:25.488-07:002016-03-29T03:22:25.488-07:00And to quote from the 2013 article you so happily ...And to quote from the 2013 article you so happily cite: "On the economics of independence, the CPPR report said: “In effect, Scotland would be giving up the net transfer from the rest of the UK implicit in the existing Barnett arrangement, of around £7bn a year in cash terms, whilst retaining its geographic share of North Sea revenues, now estimated by OBR to be between £3.3bn to £4bn by 2015-16 and projected to fall further.<br /><br />“Hence, the OBR’s latest forecasts indicate that Scotland could be facing a net fiscal loss from independence.”" Seems pretty clear to me. "Now" oil revenue forecasts have been revised downwards and are projected to drop further.<br /><br />The problem with your argument Grendal is that during that period the OBR was continuously adjusting its forecasts (downwards) as new trend data became available. Those watching the OBR forecasts revised their own expectations and plans accordingly. All except, that is, for the Scottish Government, which having printed its white paper continued unabashed to promote independence based on its oil revenue figures, even while these were becoming less credible by the month. You deride others for providing "snapshot" economic pictures (wrongly as it happens), yet you appear to believe that the only OBR figures that matter were those that applied when the white paper was being compiled. This despite oil being volatile, and its potential revenue impact on Scotland being proportionately far greater than on the UK as a whole. The Scottish Government had a whole year to be honest with the electorate that the white paper figures were looking increasingly less rosy and conspicuously failed to do so. Dishonest and cowardly, or blind drunk with the rhetoric of independence. To take a nation to the brink of economic catastrophe on such deliberate "trust me, I'm an oil economist" jingoistic arrogance was an act of criminal irresponsibility by the SG. One which you seem still incapable of grasping. RocohamAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1603438996450817644.post-26943721909577861562016-03-29T03:09:47.863-07:002016-03-29T03:09:47.863-07:00Now you see Grendal at least you're trying to ...Now you see Grendal at least you're trying to support your assertion, so I'll respond.<br /><br />1. The forecast point in question (the *only* forecast in the White Paper) was for the year 2016-17 - so why are you quoting figures for 2013-14?<br /><br />2. All your illustration shows is the ongoing track record of the OBR being optimistic and down-grading forecasts<br /><br />3. Here's the OBR report that existed 8 months prior to the White Paper being published . <a href="http://budgetresponsibility.org.uk/docs/dlm_uploads/March-2013-EFO-44734674673453.pdf" rel="nofollow">OBR March 2013</a>. If you look at page 110 you will see the total UK oil and gas revenue forecasts that existed at that time - for 2016-17 you'll see the figure was £4.8bn<br /><br />4. Of course Scotland doesn't get 100% of that figure - over the last decade Scotland's geographic share has ranged from 80 - 90% (it depends on production and profitability mix by area) ... so <i>Scottish</i> revenue forecast for 2016-17 would be £3.8bn to £4.3bn.<br /><br />5. So how optimistic was the White Paper compared to the OBR forecasts that existed <i>at the time</i>? <br /><br />£6.8n was the <b>low scenario: that's 57% to 77%, £2.5bn to £3.0bn <i>higher</i> than the OBR</b>. This is the *low* scenario remember - and it's more than £2.5bn higher than the OBR, than the OBR who had a track record of only ever being optimistic.<br /><br />£7.9bn was the <b>high scenario: that's 83% to 105%, £3.6bn to £4.0bn <i>higher</i> than the OBR</b><br /><br />So the White Paper only included scenarios that were 50% to 100% higher than the OBR were forecasting *at the time*<br /><br />Of course in December (the month after the White Paper was published) the OBR further downgraded their forecasts and well before the actual vote it was clear to any half-awake observer that the oil forecasts in the White Paper were ridiculous and - frankly - that our Scottish Government was being negligent in not informing the electorate of the fact.<br /><br />As you come to terms with quite how wrong your assertions have been I suggest you re-read the posts you wrote above impugning my integrity and falsely asserting you're mis-remembered and confused version of the numbers as "fact" ... you might consider an apology. Just a thought<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Kevin Haguehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14587343060415859159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1603438996450817644.post-88770639544716743592016-03-28T20:43:33.110-07:002016-03-28T20:43:33.110-07:00And this from The Scotsman 7th December 2013 provi...And this from The Scotsman 7th December 2013 proving that the OBR WAS predicting £6.7 billion in oil revenues for year 2013-2014 at the time the White Paper was being compiled. "Revised figures, taking into account falling output and oil prices, suggest that North Sea receipts will amount to £5bn this financial year compared with the £6.7bn originally predicted in the Chancellor’s 2013 Budget."<br />Finding the truth too boring are we, Kevin?<br />http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/oil-revenue-will-fall-short-by-1-7-billion-1-3224051Grendalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02207349599903280867noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1603438996450817644.post-60268552642636017392016-03-28T11:25:05.398-07:002016-03-28T11:25:05.398-07:00Hahaha. For those of a certain vintage - "......Hahaha. For those of a certain vintage - ".....er.....how shall we fuck off, O Lord?"Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1603438996450817644.post-80208346645018616342016-03-28T10:42:54.167-07:002016-03-28T10:42:54.167-07:00Oh, go on Kevin, why don't you tell us what yo...Oh, go on Kevin, why don't you tell us what you really think about Grendal's opinions?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1603438996450817644.post-4440094730760249242016-03-28T10:39:40.518-07:002016-03-28T10:39:40.518-07:00Thank you. Well put and I completely agree on all ...Thank you. Well put and I completely agree on all counts. Unfortunately you are endeavouring to convince someone who wishes only to find the answers they have already decided upon, namely that any economic problems in Scotland *must* be the fault of Westminster's "mismanagement" rather than being systemic or (whisper) in any degree self-inflicted. RocohamAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1603438996450817644.post-50574256409770177802016-03-28T10:34:29.401-07:002016-03-28T10:34:29.401-07:00Grendal - you are an absolute plank.
You state &q...Grendal - you are an absolute plank.<br /><br />You state "from memory" that the OBR only dropped their forecast after the White Paper was published and then say "this is a fact". If you read my blog you'd know fine well you're simply wrong and confusing price with revenue. Why can't you be bothered to look at what the OBR were actually forecasting for revenue at the time? Because you're fact averse, that's why.<br /><br />It's covered graphically in the report or if you like you can read about here <a href="http://chokkablog.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/the-masters-of-spin.html" rel="nofollow">Master of Spin</a> where you will see that the White Paper forecasts were roughly *double* the contemporaneous OBR oil revenue forecasts. STOP MAKING STUFF UP YOU INSUFFERABLE IDIOT.<br /><br />Repeating "Westminster mismanagement" at every turn is not an argument, it's a knee-jerk grievance-seeking response. FACE REALITY AND STOP SEEKING SOMEONE TO BLAME.<br /><br />My "recent snap-shots" cover 16 years - are you really such a mindless buffoon that you can't even look at the pretty pictures and see what they tell you? READ STUFF BEFORE COMMENTING ON IT.<br /><br />As for my "moral cowardice" - well frankly fuck you. I have always been quite clear that independence is possible but we should be honest about the economic implications. That's not "leaving myself a bolt-hole you idiotic ball-bag - it's simply being clear and honest.<br /><br />As for your assertion that you've used "my" figures "to point out Westminster's glaringly obvious failings" - what fucking planet are you on? Where have you used figures to make any kind of coherent argument? SIMPLY ASSERTING EVERYTHING IS WESTMINSTER'S FAULT IS NOT AN ARGUMENT, IT'S AN OPINION.<br /><br />It's also an opinion which changes nothing - NOTHING - about the starting place we'd be in if we'd voted Yes and IF YOU ENGAGED YOUR BITTER MIND FOR A NANO-SECOND - you'd realise is the point of the report you are making such an arse of yourself over.<br /><br />Now - seriously - fuck off.Kevin Haguehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14587343060415859159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1603438996450817644.post-14900071637157169242016-03-28T09:00:43.680-07:002016-03-28T09:00:43.680-07:00Kevin, I'm sorry I bore you to verge of censor...Kevin, I'm sorry I bore you to verge of censorship. I know you never tire of the sycophantic flattery from your followers but threatening not to post my comments by pretending to find them too boring speaks volumes about your intellectual confidence. Grow up. Though, having said that, it must be almost impossible to bore the guy who has blogged, effectively, the same article four times in the last month. <br />From memory, when the White Paper was being compiled in the second half of 2013, the OBR was predicting £6.7bn in oil revenues for 2013-2014 and it only dropped that estimate to £5bn after the paper was published. The IFS, OPEC and the UK's Department of Energy and Climate Change were predicting even higher figures. This is a fact and your continued denial is just pointless and childish. Also, by the way, at that time the Financial Times was reminding us not to take OBR predictions too literally anyway. "The OBR has itself stressed that forecasting oil revenues is notoriously difficult given the complex interplay of production levels, energy prices and capital investment by companies."<br />I know you like to stay in your comfort zone so I didn't expect you to address any of the points I raised above. However, if a small nation is over-dependent on oil, as Scotland would have been on the first day of its independence in 2016 (having been denied the necessary investment it has required over its years in the Union) then a crash in oil price will always lead to a huge deficit hike. It took you 4 articles to tell the world that? You ask how your graphs are selective. They are selective because they obsess on deficit. You pretend our recent deficit snap-shots are more significant than they really are but Scotland's economic problems lie, as you may recall me writing before, primarily in Westminster's mismanagement. Of course, this could be explained away by the fact that you were paid by Conservative Central Office but I suspect you just aren't as good an economist as you think you are.<br />But I think it’s your moral cowardice that I find most distasteful, the sleekit "I have *never* said Scotland couldn't be economically viable" protestation. Attacking the economic case for independence is your raison d'etre but you know to leave yourself a bolt-hole when the difficult challenges inevitably come along.<br />I have used your figures to point out Westminster's glaringly obvious failings in its handling of the Scottish economy over the years. You don't like this but your analytical pretensions have dug you too far in to dispute my conclusions so you feign boredom.<br />"My analysis is objective - I am looking at the facts" you bleat. Well, Kevin, you're "facts" point to a failing Union. Thank you for the revelation. Grovelling enough for you to print it?<br /> <br /><br /><br /> Grendalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02207349599903280867noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1603438996450817644.post-45275791965240279492016-03-28T04:41:07.569-07:002016-03-28T04:41:07.569-07:00Grendal, I find your mindset interesting. You seem...Grendal, I find your mindset interesting. You seem, incorrectly, to think that the oil was purely Scotland's and should have been for the exclusive use of the Scottish people, even though Scotland is part of the UK. You also seem to think that Scotland is and never has really been part of the UK. Scotland has therefore been cheated by being denied a sovereign wealth fund and having to share its oil with other Britons. Without English incompetence, Scotland might have been as rich as Norway. Scotland has been denied any say in how the economy has been managed or the oil wealth spent. Scotland's economic failings are therefore due entirely to the economic incompetence and mismanagement of the English. <br /><br />This is a very intellectually limited understanding of a series of complex and interrelated issues. We can all decry British government economic mismanagement, which affects the entire UK (and not just Scotland), although part of that can be blamed on the desire of the British people for having a standard of living, fuelled by spending and debt, that the underlying economy has never been able to support. Even today, courtesy of Barnett, the Scots are being propped up in a way that the English can only envy.<br /><br />I was living in Scotland when the oil started flowing and given the state of the place there was no question of setting up a wealth fund. I cannot help but suspect that you are too young to actually remember life in the 1970s or early 1980s and the dire state of the economy after the 1973-74 economic crisis. The early impact of globalization meant that older industries such as steel and shipbuilding were in steady decline (despite government help), not helped by militant union activities, constant strikes, excessive pay rises and the low productivity that marks the UK up to today. Anyone who worked in Scotland in the 1970s can remember just how difficult and indolent much of the workforce was. Many people would do as little work as possible and talk openly about getting redundancy windfalls and then being supported by 'the welfare'. The country was un-entrepreneurial, lazy, parochial, hung-over and lacking in aspiration; too many saw the oil as a quick windfall to be spent, by reducing taxes and allowing subsidies for failing shipyards and other rust bucket industries (unlike the Norwegians). In other words it was a 1950s socialist sort of country, where many people thought the state should give them a job in a traditional industry and they should not do too much work for it, not unlike Eastern Europe at that time.<br /><br />We should accept the argument that Scotland has received back through subsidies its share of the oil and has not been robbed. Norway had far more oil and a smaller population, as well as a workforce both better educated and more willing to accept change. The economic mismanagement to which you allude has been the result of excessive spending and failure to deal with problems like poor education, investment in training, new technologies and productivity measures, an obsession with property ownership, as well as the bottomless demand for health and welfare sending among an ageing population. <br /><br />There is no evidence that an independent Scotland would do any better and a lot which suggests that the Scottish unwillingness to change and desire to remain wedded to the past would have made things worse. Scots can hardly complain this is all the fault of the English, when we see Scots Prime Ministers and Chancellors of the Exchequer (1997-2010). In fact the boot is on the other foot; the English can reasonably complain much more strongly that they have been dragged down by Scots political and economic mismanagement.<br /><br />So, why not get off your high horse and stop moaning. It is time you started to ask how an independent Scotland, faced with massive economic start up problems that cannot simply be wished away by your magical thinking, would do things better. As it is, you come over as someone who would not recognise reality if it hit you between the eyes.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1603438996450817644.post-19230504782228632022016-03-28T01:38:10.610-07:002016-03-28T01:38:10.610-07:00Grendal
You quite clearly haven't understood ...Grendal<br /><br />You quite clearly haven't understood a word I've written. That must be my fault for using words that were possibly too long or maybe not sugar-coating the message enough for you.<br /><br />You simply ignore the fact that the White Paper oil scenarios were *double* that the OBR were forecasting - now *that's* selective interpretation of information on your part. You can't have read my blog and not be aware of that fact.<br /><br />I have *never* said Scotland couldn't be economically viable, I have taken great care to say that we *could* be independent, the only question is what the implications would be for us. Why do you have to make stuff up so that you can complain about it?<br /><br />What is selective about my graphs? I show every year for which GERS data is consistently available, I cover all costs and all revenues, I compare to UK and rUK, I used per capita and GDP comparisons, I compare consistently across EU. Again: stop making stuff up to complain about.<br /><br />My analysis is objective - I am looking at the facts - if you read the report I allude to the fact that depending on your perspective you can choose to attribute any positives or negatives in the figures to success or failure of Westminster rule. You are voicing a grievance-laden opinion (which you are welcome too) but you look frankly ridiculous claiming a fact-based report doesn't share your ridiculously skewed world view.<br /><br />You bore the arse off me with your repetitive and idiotic comments (as if "we" haven't been involved in running the UK for the last few hundred years) so - for the record - if you repeat this drivel I won't post the comment.Kevin Haguehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14587343060415859159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1603438996450817644.post-16185205619366099282016-03-28T00:59:03.021-07:002016-03-28T00:59:03.021-07:00Grendal.
The GERS figures show that revenue raised...Grendal.<br />The GERS figures show that revenue raised in Scotland is pretty similar to that raised down South (and across the North channel). This should probably be taken as a sign of Scotland having a "fundamentally strong economy" - as pointed out by Nicola Sturgeon. The GERS figures also show that against this background, the Government spends more public money in Scotland than it does down South. More than is raised in revenue.<br />Yet you seem to be suggesting that it is incompetent or malign of the Government to maintain this difference. Could you explain?<br /><br />(I love what you did with your last sentence. 'Dumb and dumber' is one of my favourite movies, too)<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1603438996450817644.post-15792843476953417682016-03-27T20:47:49.794-07:002016-03-27T20:47:49.794-07:00I wasn't asking for the Tardis, Kevin, but, as...I wasn't asking for the Tardis, Kevin, but, as you begin your article by suggesting that past disasters can inform and influence future actions, I simply point out that there is one, big, bedazzling factor in our past actions which you have studiously avoided addressing and that relates to our place in the UK all through the years that disaster was taking place. To recognise that fact has nothing to do with grievance or obsession.<br />We all now know the White Paper predictions turned out to be inaccurate but, as I illustrated while commenting on one of your previous articles, they were based on the available data at the time. If the White Paper lied to the electorate then so did the OBR, the UK government and OPEC.<br />Your last three or four articles have just rehashed the previous one using your selective graphs and charts to illustrate your belief (obsession?) that Scotland could not be economically viable as an independent state (though I've noticed you've recently begun to suggest that this is not really your conclusion at all, you tease!). I simply point out that surely Lesson 1 should be, don't let the people who messed-up the last time anywhere near the reins of government in future.<br />Of course you know this is correct so, like all good scientific economists working for a Party which is trying to push the opposite message, you ignore it completely and try to suggest your figures show something entirely different.<br />In any situation, success tends to be about making the right decisions and, of course, Scotland's No vote the referendum means that we are still not in a position to make these correct decisions for our own country. That is a situation we can and will change in future.<br />You end this article "What the GERS numbers show us is that the likely price we would have paid for independence had there been a Yes vote would have been of the order of £9bn a year; that’s about £1,700 a year for every man, woman and child in Scotland" but fail to remind us that the UK government debt stands at about £25,000 for every man woman and child in the UK. Both figures are frightening and illustrate the economic incompetence of those who have run Scotland's and the UK's finances to date. But if we are to stop digging Scotland into a deeper hole then our first action should be to take the spades away from those who got us here. That, Kevin, is what your graphs and charts teach us without the help of a time-machine.<br /><br /> Grendalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02207349599903280867noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1603438996450817644.post-6316892152314908582016-03-27T15:23:58.475-07:002016-03-27T15:23:58.475-07:00Goodness Grendal - there wasn't an option of g...Goodness Grendal - there wasn't an option of going back to 1980, we weren't voting for a time machine. You really need to get your head around the future rather than trying to rerun the past - and if we'd voted Yes the future would start from here, with these numbers. Numbers that bear no resemblance to those the Yes campaign and the White Paper were pitching as our starting point.<br /><br />Your misplaced sense of grievance may make you believe it's still the right thing to do - I'm just suggesting you don't lie to the electorate about the economic reality we would face just so that you can achieve your the goal wit which you have become mindlessly obsessed.<br /><br />Is that so much to ask?Kevin Haguehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14587343060415859159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1603438996450817644.post-52977289225386038402016-03-27T11:59:47.569-07:002016-03-27T11:59:47.569-07:00Not sure what I am supposed to cringe at, Kevin.
...Not sure what I am supposed to cringe at, Kevin. <br />The fact remains that you introduce your article with these words "These figures are used to explain Scotland’s past economic performance (as an integral part of the UK) so as to inform our understanding of the future choices a possible independent Scotland would face" but the figures you present do nothing of the sort. They simply track the results of Scotland's economic mismanagement from 1998 till 2014-15 and give us some hints about what is and isn't being done during that process. <br />Now I am no economist but the key point I take from your graphs is that Scotland failed spectacularly to create a healthy economy in the later years of its oil boom (unlike similarly oil-blessed and populated Norway).<br />Economics, of course, is not about cataloging and illustrating finance using graphs. It is about studying the complex relationships between the production, consumption, and transfer of wealth and, in our case, using these studies to make the best decisions for future development. <br />The point I'm making is that your illustrations fall far short of this. In fact, they don't even go very far beyond laying-out the GERS figures again.<br />They certainly don't "....explain Scotland’s past economic performance (as an integral part of the UK) so as to inform our understanding of the future choices a possible independent Scotland would face" otherwise they would point out the obvious, that Scotland's economy was grossly mismanaged between 1998 and 2015, and probably because the government which was mismanaging it was not answerable to the people of Scotland.<br />If outsiders come in and mess up your life then your first action should be to stop them from continuing to do it in future. This is why this democracy thing has caught on so well in Europe in recent decades and centuries, because people realise that the best way to run their affairs is to run them themselves. By all means enter into mutually agreed co-operative arrangements with others (that tends to be a good thing) but if your household finances are run by that crowd at number 25 and your house is neglected and decrepit, your children are malnourished and the no. 25 lot have drunk away your granny's huge inheritance in the local pub and are now telling you to thank them for all their help, well, quite simply it’s time to man-up and take control of your own finances.<br />Interminable deficit/GDP graphs prove nothing and you use yours as a smokescreen to hide the truth. The UK is now in debt by about £25,000 for every man, woman and child in the UK and, in spite of OBR graphs and Treasury charts over the last few years predicting future economic prosperity, the UK economy has stubbornly failed to meet even their most modest targets.<br />Of course, digging ourselves out of a hole which others have dug for us is likely to be hard but that shouldn't stop us from trying. <br />Grendalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02207349599903280867noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1603438996450817644.post-69659640587323513202016-03-27T08:45:56.432-07:002016-03-27T08:45:56.432-07:00Here is my detailed response to "Moh Kohn&quo...Here is my detailed response to "Moh Kohn"'s rather embarrassing attmept at a critique (be warned, you'll find yourself cringing quite a lot, you may even end up feeling sorry for him)<br /><br /><a href="http://chokkablog.blogspot.co.uk/2016/03/clowns-left-jokers-right.html" rel="nofollow">Clowns Left, Jokers Right</a>Kevin Haguehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14587343060415859159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1603438996450817644.post-35312148995759568482016-03-27T08:43:50.024-07:002016-03-27T08:43:50.024-07:00Grendal - your comment simply demonstrates you did...Grendal - your comment simply demonstrates you didn't bother to read the actual report. bravo.Kevin Haguehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14587343060415859159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1603438996450817644.post-84217689264560113872016-03-27T08:33:04.967-07:002016-03-27T08:33:04.967-07:00Kevin, once again, all your comments and graphs il...Kevin, once again, all your comments and graphs illustrate is that Scotland has been very badly served by Westminster under the union. This is a country which, after years of record high oil prices, has ended up apparently performing worse than any independent state in Europe. Why are we not up there with oil-rich independent Norway, which has invested its oil wealth in its future generations instead of being "a worse economic basket case than Greece?"<br />Did the Tories actually pay you proper money for this nonsense? "These figures are used to explain Scotland’s past economic performance (as an integral part of the UK) so as to inform our understanding of the future choices a possible independent Scotland would face." If past economic performance informs us of anything about our "future choices" it is that we can't keep on like this. <br />Onshore revenues since 1998 should have seen steadily increasing figures as our fabulous offshore revenues were invested around the nation to strengthen our economy. But your graphs clearly illustrate that that did not happen and that Scotland was knowingly and systematically robbed of its riches. <br />Concentrating on high Scottish public spending while ignoring low investment in Scotland also demonstrates your own deliberate attempts to ignore the most obvious issues pertaining to economic performance. Being selective about what you analyse might suit your Tory bosses but ignores the real economic issues surrounding Scottish independence. What you give is a skewed snapshot of how Scotland's economy might have looked on the last day of the United Kingdom. Your conclusion that we are economically unviable is intellectually inept. Your solution that we should therefore change nothing is laughable.Grendalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02207349599903280867noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1603438996450817644.post-66921137351212787552016-03-27T07:41:42.748-07:002016-03-27T07:41:42.748-07:00I dare say KH can answer for himself, but all the ...I dare say KH can answer for himself, but all the same...<br /><br />The essay you link to doesn't really make one coherent point, but a succession of little pointlets.<br />I think these can be put in 3 groups:<br />1. The analysis by KH lacks the nuances of professional or academic economics.<br />2. When looked at by superior economic expertise, Scotland's economy is not lacking in any way.<br />3. When looked at by superior economic expertise, Scotland's economy is lacking, but it's Westminster's fault.<br /><br />My responses:<br />To 1. Well maybe, but that basic arithmetic is quite stubborn, no?<br />To 2 and 3. First, I think if you want a sensible discussion, you need to choose between these self-contradictory claims. Secondly, none of them is very substantial, so I think it's my turn to go for a pint.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1603438996450817644.post-24253357398563949382016-03-27T04:03:45.412-07:002016-03-27T04:03:45.412-07:00Closer analysis perhaps, but also amateurish. Obvi...Closer analysis perhaps, but also amateurish. Obviously incorrect in many parts and (unjustifiably) smug in its tone. I'm not sure that Kevin need spend too much time correcting it; it will only convince those determined to believe it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1603438996450817644.post-87355813573429072852016-03-27T02:10:00.209-07:002016-03-27T02:10:00.209-07:00So what remains as the purpose of the SNP?
The &qu...So what remains as the purpose of the SNP?<br />The "resource grab" nationalism, or the "fairer society" nationalism?<br />Sounds like the resource grab, except it isn't about oil anymore, just an extra helping of the wider UK resources.<br />All I can say is I don't find that very admirable.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1603438996450817644.post-13566906226699101492016-03-27T01:53:52.789-07:002016-03-27T01:53:52.789-07:00Actually, the BfS piece is really just a bit of na...Actually, the BfS piece is really just a bit of name-calling and a half-hearted go at muddying the waters.<br />Anyone persuaded by this has to be really trying:<br /><br />http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/<br /><br />BfS? More like F'BS.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1603438996450817644.post-46141589463827608852016-03-26T12:18:51.979-07:002016-03-26T12:18:51.979-07:00Oh Dear!...All these lovely charts and indisputabl...Oh Dear!...All these lovely charts and indisputable facts, have suddenly come under closer analysis, could you correct him please Kev?<br /><br />https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9RObbv_eTgHdkdnTlBPOS1MS1U/view<br /><br />Dointhebiz1https://www.blogger.com/profile/01012169978019273203noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1603438996450817644.post-35208858107245293352016-03-25T11:09:48.547-07:002016-03-25T11:09:48.547-07:00Reading through all the replies to my earlier comm...Reading through all the replies to my earlier comment, the consensus seems to be that the SNP has not changed, so you won't. However, the problem with that line is that the SNP will not have another referendum in the 2016 manifesto, and I doubt very much if there will be one in my lifetime - I'm 60 by the way.<br /><br />The leaders need to keep the ultras happy with smooth talk, but they make damn sure that they never commit themselves to anything. On that basis I reckon that the SNP is on the road to becoming the party of Home Rule, and I would be quite happy with that.<br /><br />Let's face it, they got a great deal for us with the fiscal framework talks, as the owner of this blog admitted in his February postings. Ken Bellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01042984331818416863noreply@blogger.com