tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1603438996450817644.post2724934033412636253..comments2024-01-12T01:56:21.933-08:00Comments on chokka blog: Brexit and the case for Scottish independenceKevin Haguehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14587343060415859159noreply@blogger.comBlogger80125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1603438996450817644.post-85553783733716275242016-11-02T07:04:41.786-07:002016-11-02T07:04:41.786-07:00The picture is equally gloomy for Scotland, regard...The picture is equally gloomy for Scotland, regarding EU trade, as part of the UK.<br /><br />The likelihood is Spain will potentially veto any EU trade deal that would grant the UK access to the single market, unless the UK agrees joint sovereignty of Gibraltar.<br /><br />If there were no deal with in two years, the UK would leave the EU on WTO terms, meaning tariffs and customs checks for exporters.<br /><br />While around 64% of our trade is with the rest of the UK, 50% of the UK's trade is with the EU so we will feel a knock on effect of this to our economy as part of the UK. As well of course we will suffer the impact on our own trade, with around 40% of our overseas exports destined for countries within the European Union estimated at £11.6 billion.<br /><br />Drewnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1603438996450817644.post-18104196494171635922016-07-24T15:32:30.871-07:002016-07-24T15:32:30.871-07:00I've been watching the BBC program about Brexi...I've been watching the BBC program about Brexit and it strikes me we are seeing very little discussion on the EU countries and their attitude to the EU. <br /><br />I've said in this Blog before that the Commonwealth countries could be a major opportunity for us and India and Australia have already said they would be interested in doing a trade deal with us. Remember that to get a deal with the EU you have to get all 28 countries voting for it. As EU countries all have their own issues this makes getting a deal a real nightmare.<br /><br />As Britain can now go it alone the opportunities must be huge for us surely?<br /><br />It's a fact that we are going to continue to trade with the EU. If we decide not to accept free movement what percentage of that trade might be hit? I would suggest much less than we might imagine. <br /><br />Germany has already noted the potential loss of jobs in Germany if they don't do a deal with Britain. <br /><br />Whether we like it or not Europe is in decline and Asia is where future growth and investment is going. Brexit frees us up to negotiate directly with them. China has already said it would be interested in doing business with us. The USA is also a market where we could do more business. <br /><br />Scotland in particular needs the EU but to be frank the EU doesn't need Scotland. All talk of warm feelings to us is just that... talk. <br /><br />So what I'd like to see is (1) more hard research on the workings of the EU and the attitude of the EU countries to the EU. For example France and Austria seem to be against EU membership so how likely is it that they might vote to leave and what would be the repercussions if they did? (2) more research on the prospects for working with the Commonwealth countries and (3) more research on dealing with countries outside the EU and Commonwealth.<br /><br />Scotland keeps saying that rUK must respect Scotland's position on Brexit and Trident but I see no mention of Scotland respecting rUK's position. So why should England respect Scotland when Scotland clearly doesn't respect England? <br /><br />From figures that Keith has produced it would seem that rUK might be billions better off without Scotland. I've always been a bit puzzled as to why England and Wales haven't been more aggressive towards Scotland.<br /><br />And not forgetting Global organisations that now make more of our laws.<br /><br />So why aren't see spending more of our media time looking at all this?Alastair McIntyrenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1603438996450817644.post-54410686054106251642016-07-24T11:13:10.700-07:002016-07-24T11:13:10.700-07:00I thought I might copy you into an email I got fro...I thought I might copy you into an email I got from a friend who has had many dealing with the UN and EU over many years and is in favour of Scottish Independence.<br /><br />We are all just trying to come to terms with election results, but here are a few thoughts of mine, such as they are. <br /><br />The vote was a huge surprise to most of us. I went to bed thinking that the government would win in the end as they tended to do. But next morning the full result surprised me, as it did many of the Leave group. <br /><br />Nicola's wish to hold another Independence vote is a bit of bluff on her part. It is too soon and there is little public support for it.<br /><br />Our fishing industry is finished and has been so for decades. The fleet is seriously diminished, as is the pool of skilled workers, - net makers, boat builders, marine engineers, fish processors etc. Anyway, the SNP has never had any serious interest in supporting the fishery sector. Richard Lochhead who has just resigned has been eagerly stripping the coastal fleets of any rights they had to fish in our inshore waters. Most of our ports are closed to fish landings, and the quotas are held by greedy fish salesmen and local banks. He behaved very badly towards the fish catching sector. His staff followed the extreme green line that treated fish catchers like criminals. <br /><br />As for joining EFTA, there is little interest in that since our fish industry is now so seriously depleted. <br /><br />But steel is important, and at last we can set our own tariffs for such imports. <br /><br />As for the doom and gloom merchants, - their threats and predictions of economic collapse are slowly evaporating. The EU elite are beginning to admit we will probably manage fine on our own. <br /><br />But hooray! we are now free of the iniquitous EU. On television last night it was interesting to hear EU bureaucrats step back from their former position of threats etc, and now grudgingly admit we can do what we like. <br /><br />But I must hand it to the voters. After Barack Obama, the big banks, and every major institution tried to tell us there was no hope or way forward but to submit to these financial and economic behemoths and accept their rule over us, - Lo and behold the voters cocked a snoop at them and voted the opposite way. They called their bluff and it appears that the these 'kings' had no clothes at all. And now other EU states are indicating they may well follow suit.<br /><br />What has astonished me, is how quickly the whole pro-EU house of cards has collapsed. Cameron has resigned, Corbyn is facing a rebellion from his own party and the national press is rejoicing that the people have finally spoken. <br /><br />So there! But we'll see how it all pans out. Alastair McIntyrenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1603438996450817644.post-60152089864009446642016-07-22T03:08:48.655-07:002016-07-22T03:08:48.655-07:00LeeGilray
The simple answer to your question is ...LeeGilray <br /><br />The simple answer to your question is that trade deficit and fiscal deficits are different things - maybe try this: <a href="http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/1269/economics/fiscal-deficit-and-trade-surplus/" rel="nofollow">fiscal deficit and trade surplus</a><br /><br />As to the observation about knowing Englands's revenue and spending figures - well we effectively have these. We have the total UK, we know Scotland and so we know "rest of UK" as UK minus Scotland and this is what I use for much of my analysis (yes of course it's true that rUK includes Wales and NI),<br /><br />Can I suggest you read this - I think I explain it all reasonably clearly: <a href="http://chokkablog.blogspot.co.uk/2016/03/the-price-of-independence.html" rel="nofollow">Price of Independence"</a> (NB click to the full report if you're genuinely curious)Kevin Haguehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14587343060415859159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1603438996450817644.post-60271127473125646382016-07-22T01:44:05.792-07:002016-07-22T01:44:05.792-07:00Anonymous
The other thing we have both overlooked...Anonymous<br /><br />The other thing we have both overlooked so far is the role of America. Regardless of the outcome of any UK-Scottish negotiations and agreements post-independence it will be the US that will rubber stamp them.<br /><br />Ultimately as the guardians of European security for the last century, firstly on a unilateral basis and then through permanent command of NATO, Washington will not allow anything to happen in Europe that is not in their own national interest.<br /><br />The US has already several times, both in public and through diplomatic channels, voiced their strong opposition to Scottish independence. This is because the United Kingdom is their main partner in Europe and the continued existence of the UK serves the US national interest in terms of stability and security in Europe. The UK has for all intents and purposes outsourced many aspects of foreign policy to the US and therefore has to do what is in the US national interest too. <br /><br />An independent Scotland outside of NATO would not, in my opinion, be in the US national interest. Because the US would no longer initially be able to assert influence on around a third of the British Isles landmass and territory, unless it set up a separate bi-lateral agreement with Scotland. Given that this is the case for Ireland and the US, with similar cultural and economic links, this might not be a major issue. However, what to do with key NATO assets in Scotland would then become part of those negotiations. <br /><br />Of course, Iceland is geographically important to the US, so it was allowed to join and remains an integral part of NATO despite having very little in the way of official armed forces at all.<br /><br />But whatever difficult and complex negotiations took place between Scotland and the UK over economic and diplomatic issues, the US would always be the final arbitrator to ensure the security and stability of the region. <br /><br />In terms of the EU, I don't think Scotland could afford to join as a full member. I think EFTA or EEA membership would be more realistic, on the same lines as Norway or Iceland. The SNP's original policy prior to the new policy on NATO was joining Partnership for Peace, the non-NATO cooperation pact with NATO. This might be enough to calm Washington's nerves and would also allow Scotland to set a realistic timetable to remove the nuclear weapons from Scotland and other NATO and UK military assets. The whole process might take 5-10 years to plan, implement and complete. <br /><br />Drewnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1603438996450817644.post-17489052937461495412016-07-21T01:47:30.001-07:002016-07-21T01:47:30.001-07:00So why is it that scotland, a country that, accord...So why is it that scotland, a country that, according to the hmrc, is exporting MORE than it is importing, WITH OIL, even with a deficit can somehow not stand on its own two feet as an independent country? Surely you would need access to england's indpendent revenue and expenditure figures to have a proper idea of how stron acotland would be... Remember that this deficit that scotland has is WITHIN the UK... England has a MASSIVE trade deficit and always has done whereas scotland, northern ireland and wales are in the black... Although I agree on alot of your points? Scotland CAN be a successful independent country, it is the lack of comparable information that is not allowing us the full insight into the ficals frameworks of ALL countries, states, regions or whatever in this union... I see all four countries being great independent countries on their own with a BETTER relationship without the "we subsidise you" argument that ALWAYS happensLeeGilrayhttp://chokkablog.blogspot.co.uk/2016/06/brexit-and-case-for-scottish.html?m=1noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1603438996450817644.post-497788368120326552016-07-21T01:28:06.464-07:002016-07-21T01:28:06.464-07:00Anonymous
Greece is completely separate from the...Anonymous <br /><br />Greece is completely separate from the UK and thousands of miles away, with far less economic ties and strategic importance to the UK, so your example about British nationals living there isn't the same comparison. If Greece was threatened then it would not be an immediate threat to the UK territory. However, given how close the British base in Cyprus is and the fact Greece is a NATO member, depending on the nature of the threat and aggressor, my bet would be the UK would be part of some kind of intervention anyway, as part of a coalition. But a regional conflict in Greece would not be an immediate threat to the UK, perhaps a concern.<br /><br />Put it this way, if Scotland is so poor economically and offers little in the way of strategic benefit to the UK, why is the UK Government so determined to keep Scotland in the UK? Following your logic it seems like a waste of time, money and effort to me.<br /><br />Surely, if you are correct, the financial benefits to the UK of getting rid of Scotland would far outweigh the costs of continuing with the Union? <br /><br />Think of how many defence jobs could be brought to other parts of the UK to boost employment? The £3.5 billion pounds currently spent on defence in Scotland could be reallocated to other parts of the UK. Not to mention the £15 billion pound annual fiscal deficit in Scotland they could cut overnight.<br /><br />So why do most UK politicians, newspapers and most security and defence analysts argue about the importance of keeping the UK together?<br /><br /><br /><br />Drewnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1603438996450817644.post-52013792224079578472016-07-20T12:30:34.935-07:002016-07-20T12:30:34.935-07:00You were quoting me there, Anon. I was aware that ...You were quoting me there, Anon. I was aware that the previous case for independence was filled with fantasy. I was simply pleading that an honest case for independence was presented if there was to be another referendum. I may choose to vote for such a case, though it is unlikely. Funnily enough, George Kerevan on Monday admitted that there would have to be serious spending cuts if Scotland were to become independent. This represents a good start. If a plausible case can be made that Scotland will emerge stronger after the pain, then great. That said, after years of punishing cuts, and the raised poverty, unemployment, suicides and emigration it entails, I don't think it would be worth it.theamblerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01842086380447890404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1603438996450817644.post-76675296981315452212016-07-20T07:50:43.118-07:002016-07-20T07:50:43.118-07:00Scottish independence would bring five years of cu...Scottish independence would bring five years of cuts, says SNP MP<br /><br />Did you see this post in the Scotsman? You can read it at http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/scottish-independence-would-bring-five-years-of-cuts-says-snp-mp-1-4181483 <br />Alastair McIntyrenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1603438996450817644.post-65923892884315143292016-07-20T06:57:39.592-07:002016-07-20T06:57:39.592-07:00Drew, I certainly do not suppose that the SNP will...Drew, I certainly do not suppose that the SNP will win every future election, but it is not unreasonable to suppose that they will win any election that follows closely upon a Scexit vote from the UK. The party is not going to disband itself - there are too many professional politicians anxious about their own future. Since one of the main aims of independence appears to be the removal of Trident, then one has to ask the logic in voters seeking 'freedom' and then happily agreeing to a UK lease or enclave continuing. Regardless of who comes to power Trident will probably go, not least because a British government is unlikely to want to maintain its nuclear base in foreign territory. My original point was that assuming it can be used as leverage for other issues is ill-founded. You are of course quite right that for geographical reasons the UK cannot simply ignore Scotland. This is what will enable a cynical Scots government to seek a free ride on the British taxpayer. I am sure the canniness in saving money will make you proud. The real issues are:<br /><br />1. Will an independent Scotland join NATO? You have expressed some doubts and you may be right. If it joins NATO then the issues about use of bases, radars, etc largely disappear and so does Scots leverage. If Scotland goes down the Irish non-aligned route then there will clearly be some minor cooperation, but that will probably not extend to areas like providing air defence or intelligence sharing. If Scotland at this juncture finds itself outside the EU as well, perhaps waiting 2-7 years to join, then it will be seriously isolated and very dependent on UK magnanimity (which sadly might be in short supply). <br /><br />Obviously I do not know the outcome of future elections, but given the apparent influence of the Liberal/Green/left wing Labour/SNP/SCND/peace lobby, I think we have to reckon with the possibility of non-alignment. A refusal to embrace NATO nuclear strategy and unwillingness to spend on defence or allow access to non-nuclear bases, might well lead to reluctance to see the country within the alliance, until its policies change. And of course, a left wing Scottish government may simply decline even to join, actually preferring non-alignment or neutrality instead of resting under the nuclear umbrella. <br /><br />I doubt that Whitehall will be over-concerned about British passport holders living in Scotland; the real interest is defence of the UK homeland. When I lived in Greece I did not expect the UK to defend me against regional threats - this was a task for the Hellenic armed forces. Or is this yet another example of the unwillingness of too many Scots to let go of nanny's apron strings by pleading the 'suddenly we are all British card'?<br /><br />2. Will Scotland join the EU? I suppose the answer must be 'very probably', but it may take longer and cost more than appreciated. EU membership outside NATO (like Austria, Ireland, Sweden) might work, since it would be based on the belief the Swedes have, that in the event of a threat the other EU countries would rally round and offer assistance. This is quite possible, although of course it still ultimately rests upon the idea that a nuclear-armed partner (France) would offer the ultimate security. I take it that you think this is more acceptable than London offering the same unwritten guarantee? You might well argue that with Faslane gone there would be no direct NBC threats to Scotland anyway, and at the moment it would be hard to disagree. The whole point about a deterrent is that it is an insurance policy against unforeseen future events. In practice, the fact that you have a nuclear-armed country next door will inevitably draw you into a future nuclear crisis, whether you wish to be or not. Unfortunately, a Scots government is unlikely to have any real say in the London decision-making process.<br /><br />The point I am trying to make is that your rather over-simplified original argument, that Scotland has lots of defence leverage, is probably much less accurate than you think and there could be undesired consequences.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1603438996450817644.post-52326960202516192262016-07-20T02:39:39.040-07:002016-07-20T02:39:39.040-07:00In reply to Eric (and other fantasy believers)26 J...In reply to Eric (and other fantasy believers)26 June 2016 at 10:44 "The claims made by Leave were Walter Mitty fantasies and to their shame, they were believed by 52% of the UK.<br />I agree with Eric above. Spell out the cost of independence. Don't tell me a tale about unicorns. I may choose to support it next time."<br />===================================================================================<br />But surely you can see the SNP's own plan to leave the UK are based on continuing and ever changing range of "Walter Mitty fantasies" and invented grievance ? <br />The SNP even went to the extent of setting up a pretend "Neutral" yet pro Indy "Business for Scotland" group for the sake of providing "hands off unaccounability" made up walter mitty on the facts of Independence on the Scottish Business to keep them arms length from the official YES campaign. If you think that a political party like the SNP and its false propaganda spouting MP's , MSP's and rabid Activists will ever tell you the honest truth about anything then you are kidding yourself.<br /><br />The YES campaign (including the SNP) whole purpose is to create a Butterfly and Unicorn max filled environment Utopian dream , the hard reality of which you will never ever be able to understand till you have it and when you have it the largely stable situation that you have now will be completely gone in exactly the same way as pre-brexit UK. The situation will be much worse though with the EU only being circa 14% of Scottish trade but the UK being circa 65% of Scottish trade. The upheaval and distress caused to Scots will be of a different magnitude that Brexit , the loss of £9bn from WM will need to be addressed and that is a completely huge Austerity programme compared with WM's approx mere £3bn Austerity in Scotland so far and the SNP are working hard to sucker Scots into it just like the LEAVE campaign did with Brexit. The Scots nation will realise it has been made mugs off too late when the SNP have their turn at saying "Democracy HAS spoken and must be served and begins steering Scotland like Lemmings into an economic hell only ever previously seen through the Nationalist's deep Rose tinted spectacles where everything you dream off only ever turns out the way you want it to. This is not reality that the SNP are spinning to the Nation, when SNP MP's spend their valuable time writing fictional grievance blogs of childish bile purely for the consumption of Nationalist sympathiser's alone rather than actually doing anything real to make Scotland a better place we should all be worried. Goebbels travelled that path and see how that turned out ? Yet this practice is now widespread within Nationalism.<br />Search Kevins Blog for "Business for Scotland" and see the propaganda for the rubbish it is and ask yourself why the SNP feels it has to deliberately deceive the Nation ? Wake up Scotland and see the propaganda and lies for what they are before its too late or you will have bigger worries than Brexit to deal with.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1603438996450817644.post-5778378776605080752016-07-19T03:14:03.196-07:002016-07-19T03:14:03.196-07:00Yesindyref2
Oh dear.
No I didn't mean the on...Yesindyref2<br /><br />Oh dear.<br /><br />No I didn't mean the onshore deficit gap - I'd say that if I meant that. The point (the staggeringly simple point you appear to be blind to) is that as oil declines the deficit gap and the onshore deficit gap become the same thing (in fact with oil tax revenues being net negative because of decommissioning cost and tax credits the actual deficit gap becomes larger than the onshore deficit gap - but we'll let that pass).<br /><br />You say "nominal" as if you're making some new point - I wrote an entire page on what GERS does and doesn't mean and was very clear that they are we might call "pro-forma" accounts (a lot better than the term "nominal" which you use by the way, if we're descending into semantic point-scoring). See quote at the foot of this comment.<br /><br />Its true on a %age GDP basis and per capita basis (which given debt costs are allocated on a per capita basis is arguably a better comparison). Again - I've done both and documented it all very carefully.<br /><br />You misunderstand the whole point when you refer to the IFS revisions on UK forecasts - the <i>gap</i> is what we're discussing and if anything (look at the macro indicators) Scotland is performing <i>relatively</i> worse than the UK so there is no reason to assume this means the <i>gap</i> is closing - if anything I think we'll find it's widening when the next full figures are released. If you believe the <i>gap</i> is closing, please share with me the evidence for that.<br /><br />As for the convoluted work - well I have included the SNAP data and taken the analysis back to 1980 and the point of all of this is that yes it <i>is</i> incredibly simple - there has consistently been an onshore deficit gap of £8-10bn over the last decade. The Yes campaign resolutely failed to acknowledge or address this simple fact. Anybody who understands this economic point could not have in good faith argued that "oil is just a bonus" to the economic case for independence.<br /><br />"Deficit gap", "effective fiscal transfer" [You have continued to ignore my use of the word "effective" I notice], "cash terms difference" - however we choose to label it we can agree that it exists and anybody arguing for independence has to address it.<br /><br />Imagine how much time you'd have saved if you'd actually read what I wrote as I suggested rather than arguing against a straw man that you've constructed<br /><br />Here's the link again <a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9i7kxf8EcbbTjBySFVOdmpsbjA/view" rel="nofollow">The Price of Independence</a> - it addresses every single one of your points you've stumblingly attempted to raise, so I know you still haven't read it.<br /><br />For example here's what I say about interpreting the GERS figures:<br /><br /><i><br /><b>Pro-Forma Accounts</b><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 /></i><br /><br />See page 26 for analysis using the SNAP figures.<br /><br />See page 23 for comparative % GDP and per Capita analysis.<br /><br />See page 5. for painstakingly clearly defined methodology (GERS figures are not deflated, rUK comparisons are not provided)<br /><br />Actually - just read the whole fucking thing - you might learn something.<br /><br />If you make another comment that demonstrates that you still haven't written my report then I'm afraid I won't respond.Kevin Haguehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14587343060415859159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1603438996450817644.post-58030419623531907042016-07-19T01:20:55.538-07:002016-07-19T01:20:55.538-07:00Anonymous
You may be a political economist but yo...Anonymous<br /><br />You may be a political economist but you have made a pretty spectacular rookie error. Of course there is no way of telling what the Scottish Government's policy towards nuclear weapons/NATO would be in an independent Scotland. There is no way of knowing which party would win the elections in an independent Scotland or even, which parties would exist post-independence.<br /><br />The SNP will be delighted to hear you think they would win every single election in an independent Scotland between now and the end of time. But the chances of that happening are highly unlikely. Your analysis so far assumes the SNP would be the only set of policy-makers in an independent Scotland and takes no account of the other political groupings in Scotland. It wasn't that long ago that Labour and the Lib Dems were in control and dominated large parts of the country. Whether these parties would continue in an independent Scotland is open to debate but if they didn't, new political groups and parties would emerge. The Greens have seen a growth in membership and currently can hold the balance of power in the Scottish Parliament. In return for supporting a second referendum, they may insist on a non NATO, nuclear free independent Scotland. <br /><br /><br />You regard staying outside of NATO as 'the dark corner of Europe' which presumably is what you think of Ireland, Austria and Finland? This doesn't account for the mutual cooperation agreement Partnership for Peace which exists between NATO and non-NATO countries. <br /><br />Countries like Ireland actually get a 'free-ride' when it comes to security and defence in relation to NATO. As the Republic shares a landmass and border with the UK and could be used as a launchpad for an attack on the UK, there is no way if Ireland was invaded or attacked the UK and NATO could afford the luxury of sitting back and not getting involved in the conflict. It is too close to the UK mainland. The same would apply to Scotland sharing a land border with England and less than 12 miles across the sea from Northern Ireland at the narrowest point. Ireland's policy of neutrality and non-alignment has served them well, largely as a by-stander during World War II and protected during the Cold War. It has also allowed their defence spending, as you mention, to be kept amongst the lowest in the EU.<br /><br />There are 400,000 people from elsewhere in the UK living and working in Scotland and the Foreign Office would be duty bound to protect their interests post-independence. Overnight they would become the largest British diaspora in the world. Not everyone would be able to sell their house immediately following independence, especially if the economy is going to be suffering. They will in effect be stuck here in the short term. There are also many members of the UK elite society that own land and property in Scotland including Samantha Cameron's father in law, Paul Dacre of the Daily Mail and of course the Queen owns private land and property in Scotland which is exclusive of the Crown Estate. If Scotland's economy suffered to the extent you believe, it is highly unlikely they would be able to sell their assets quickly. So the UK Government would have to ensure their security in the short and medium term. Not to mention the many other millions of pounds worth of assets British businesses own in Scotland.<br /><br />The reality is, whatever political groupings and parties exist in an independent Scotland, whether inside NATO or outside, nuclear free or retaining the existing military facilities or not, the UK Government would have to cooperate with Scotland on matters of security and defence. <br /><br />Drewnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1603438996450817644.post-44090222039201408012016-07-18T22:00:12.962-07:002016-07-18T22:00:12.962-07:00The UK has just made a decision (Brexit) that may ...The UK has just made a decision (Brexit) that may save/doom the country for the foreseeable future, but that all depends upon who you ask, or, which newspaper/blog you read. So what was Brexit? Was it a good or a bad thing? If so, for whom? <br /><br />I believe Brexit was a mistake, but I can understand completely why people are disenchanted with an EU that does not appear to listen to its electorate and seems to plough on with its decisions irrespective of what voters think. https://breturn.rocks/breturn.rockshttps://breturn.rocks/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1603438996450817644.post-30064192213355335992016-07-18T16:04:14.572-07:002016-07-18T16:04:14.572-07:00Ah, Kevin, so from your reply, what you actually m...Ah, Kevin, so from your reply, what you actually meant was "onshore deficit gap", not fiscal transfer (though a more accurate term is "cash-terms difference / equivalent"). Why didn't you just say so, could have saved all these column inches! Onshore deficit gap being the gap between the UK deficit as a percentage of GDP, and Scotland's <b>nominal</b> deficit (we don't actually have one) as a % of GDP, with that nominal deficit calculated through GERS, that's the GERS that has for instance "unknown region" revenue incorrectly split between the UK and Scotland (source: scot gov) for, for instance, oil processsed and exported directly from rigs, hence giving a reduced figure for our GDP / revenue.<br /><br />From the updated IFS report published in March 2016 (which I read at the time), the onshore deficit gap gives a "cash-terms difference" as they call it of -£4.6 bn from GERS 2013-14, -£7.2 bn from the outturns for 2014-15, and a "projected" figure of -£9.4bn for 2015-16, and so on for following years.<br /><br />But as the IFS says <i>"Since our last projections were made the OBR has revised its forecasts, with the UK deficit now forecast to be a little higher in the period from 2016-17 to 2018-19."</i>, and this was published in March. Since then Osborne has admitted the UK will not actually achieve a surplus as planned because of Brexit, so these figures are already well out of date.<br /><br />Anyway, although the IFS did call it a "fiscal transfer" in a hasty possibly not properly QA'd update 2 or 3 years ago after Osborne's budget, its current version - correctly - does not use that term.<br /><br />Incidentally, the deficits of the UK and Scotland - Scotland with or without oil - can be found on the one page executive summary of GERS, and the calculation of the onshore deficit gap (percentage terms) can be done in the head, and then the "cash terms equivalent" with 1 or 2 lines of working. Though this doesn't take account yet of SNAP data. But that would have saved you all that convoluted work. Keep it simple!<br /><br />The fiscal transfer as described by the UK Government is indeed approximately zero, and relates to spending not previously under control of the Scottish Government (pensions and welfare). Look up the paper yourself, and latest available pensions and welfare figures, split by "region".<br /><br />Glad to help :-)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1603438996450817644.post-85598475917505539312016-07-17T21:11:43.070-07:002016-07-17T21:11:43.070-07:00Yesindyref2
It is an established convention to us...Yesindyref2<br /><br />It is an established convention to use mot recent published figures as current. As I've shown very clearly the difference in spend per capita and onshore revenue per capita is very consistent over the last 15 years. Given the Barnett formula and fiscal framework we know the difference in spend is continuing; given economic activity and tax rates we know the same is true for onshore revenue. We also know that offshore revenues (oil & gas) is now effectively zero (ie. less than it was in the 2014-15 figures) so we can predict with a very high degree of confidence that we are currently continuing to run close to the £10bn underlying onshore deficit gap that I (and others like the IFS) have identified. I uses £9bn as an ongoing figure to be conservative (there are error bands on the GERS figures and whether its £9bn or £10bn makes little difference to the argument).<br /><br />As for your cherry-picked pensions figure - well seriously? The whole point about the <i>effective</i> fiscal transfer (the term I consistently use by the way) is it's the net effective of <i>all</i> public spending and <i>all</i> taxes raised. You could also say we net contribute raise more in sin taxes per capita (alcohol, tobacco and betting duties) as I've pointed out elsewhere. So what? It's the total tax and total spend figures you need to look at to work out if we are net recipients of or payers of an effective fiscal transfer.<br /><br />I'm sorry you were unable to understand these very simple points by reading the detailed paper I've written on the subject. Maybe if you try reading what the IFS have written you will understand it more clearly - they reach very similar conclusions as do the NIESR.<br /><br />I'm deeply disappointed you feel unable to offer even a few simple examples of where my analysis is wrong - I suggest you start by reading it again and trying to understand the basic principles of how the effective fiscal transfer occurs before making ill-informed and not-even-half-thought-through criticisms<br /><br />hugs<br /><br />Kevin <br />Kevin Haguehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14587343060415859159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1603438996450817644.post-64620615519446223672016-07-17T07:53:57.181-07:002016-07-17T07:53:57.181-07:00Drew
Let me start by congratulating you on your op...Drew<br />Let me start by congratulating you on your open admission that the independence white paper was just a political document intended to win the referendum, not a serious plan for running a country. This implies of course that you also accept that it was full of untested assertions, half truths and wishful thinking about such minor issues as currency sharing, oil wealth, pensions and EU membership. <br /><br />You seem uncertain about whether Scotland will seek NATO membership, regardless of what is said to reassure voters. To confuse matters you say that you think the SNP may soften its stance on nuclear weapons if that is the only realistic policy, even though party policy is to remove all nuclear weapons from the country as soon as possible. I am not surprised at these contradictions given the lack of a clear published SNP defence policy. So we now have a contradiction: the SNP is campaigning to get rid of British nuclear weapons, but after independence might be induced to keep them at Faslane after all and possibly join the nuclear NATO alliance.<br /><br />Just who is trying to have it both ways? Is Scotland going to follow SNP policy and go nuclear free or not? Why would a party fight for independence and then allow Faslane/Coulport to remain, probably leading to their own political meltdown? Is achieving independence all that the SNP wants and what happens thereafter irrelevant? <br /><br />Fast tracking Scotland's membership would be clearly dependent on accepting NATO strategy, A refusal to do so will see Scotland sidelined, not just by the UK and US, but quite possibly by other NATO members. The agreement of all members is necessary to join NATO. A semi-pacifist government in Scotland will just be an added burden.<br /><br />Scotland will indeed be suffering from severe austerity after independence, but the cost of running existing radars and keeping a couple of airfields open is fairly low. My estimate as a political economist is that Scotland would in practice be spending on defence at the same rate as Ireland, say £900m-1.1bn p.a.. There is no possibility that they will be able to afford £2.5m given the economic impact of creating a new country. That is enough for some basic paramilitary type forces, a few patrol ships, running the radars, plus a couple of pipe bands, but not much more. Effectively the country will be virtually disarmed. <br /><br />The only selling point of Scotland is its geographic position, but today it is not absolutely essential. If Scotland joins NATO it cannot deny the UK use of bases, the radar chain, etc. If it stays out of NATO it simply relegates itself to the dark corner of Europe. Bear in mind that it is very possible that there will also a be a delay of several years before EU membership is achieved, despite all Sturgeon's recent groveling and whining. Saying that the UK can retain Faslane, but only at a high price, both political and economic, is clearly a crude form of blackmail. I suspect that the UK may find itself a temporary deterrent home much quicker than you expect, prior to a final relocation. <br /><br />The bottom line, is that although it will involve time, expense (probably deducted from any financial settlement with Scotland), trouble and inconvenience, the rest of the UK can in a military sense get by without Scotland, as it gets by without Ireland. It is simply naive to think that a rather crude 'we have the geographical position, but you can't use it unless you do exactly what we want' will actually work in negotiations.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1603438996450817644.post-19192783909442330132016-07-16T11:08:11.373-07:002016-07-16T11:08:11.373-07:00yesindyref2, for the less intelligent among us, ca...yesindyref2, for the less intelligent among us, can you please explain where Kevin is in error using the phrase "fiscal transfer". You appear to be sure that he is, so it would be good to understand why. Interested by your comment I did look both definition and application up in several places and found one accepted usage to be "transfers between the national and subnational levels of government". Is that not exactly what the annual c£9 billion from the UK to Scotland is? Just curious.<br /><br />rocohamAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1603438996450817644.post-73414772697574367142016-07-16T05:58:27.342-07:002016-07-16T05:58:27.342-07:00Well, I came here looking for "fiscal transfe...Well, I came here looking for "fiscal transfer", after seeing it used a few times in forums for a figure of £15 bn (including one that said from England to Scotland), to see if this blog was its origin. Yours at least is down to £9 bn, though also incorrect.<br /><br />Saw that convoluted blog entry and paper (you're deflecting to) weeks ago thanks, would take twice as long to pull it apart as it took to write it.<br /><br />Anyway, back to this: "Scotland currently receives an effective fiscal transfer from the rest of the UK of over £9bn pa".<br /><br />"Scotland currently receives". How do you know? GERS 2014-15 came out in March 2016, 2015-15 isn't due until March 2017, and we're now into 2016-17!<br />"an effective fiscal transfer". No such thing, there is either a fiscal transfer or there isn't.<br />"from the rest of the UK". No, fiscal transfers in the UK happen between central government and devolved governments, or vice versa. There is no mechanism for transfers between devolved governments in the UK, and England doesn't even have one, nor does the rUK.<br />"pa". No, there is no regular figure, it can vary from year to year.<br /><br />On top of that, there is no official published figure I could find for any year for the "fiscal transfer". But the UK Government in its anti-independence white paper - an equivalent of part of the Scottish Government's pro-Independence White paper - both with a corresponding bias - has this:<br /><br />"Fiscal transfers are automatic across the UK, <b>which supports higher welfare and pensions spending in Scotland</b>". (across the UK - also technically inaccurate, nevermind).<br /><br />Take a look via PESA at 2014 for instance and you get UK pensions + Welfare = £256 billion, Scotland = £22 billion. £22 billion is approximately the same per capita for Scotland as £256 billion for the UK, so according to the UK Gov's definition of "fiscal transfer", <b>the "fiscal transfer" for 2014 was a big fat £0</b> - either way.<br /><br />That's why I quite kindly suggested you look up what "fiscal transfer" actually means in the UK.<br /><br />Come back to me if you find another official definition of "fiscal transfer" that suits your £9 billion figure.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1603438996450817644.post-37718988278357763812016-07-15T16:08:22.370-07:002016-07-15T16:08:22.370-07:00As terrible as the terrorism attack in France is t...As terrible as the terrorism attack in France is to my mind this is only likely to make it more likely that next years Presidential elections go to the National Front. Recent polling in France has shown that Marine Le Pen is twice as popular as the current President. I believe this attack is only likely to make her more popular. Should she win the election she has stated that France will have a referendum within 6 months on whether to leave or remain in the EU. At the moment it is likely to be leave and if that were the case where then would the EU be?<br /><br />There are other elections later this year in Austria and Hungary and more next year and that is why we need to hold on an Independence referendum until we can see where the EU countries are moving.Alastair McIntyrenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1603438996450817644.post-19527840493218954032016-07-15T11:45:57.013-07:002016-07-15T11:45:57.013-07:00dear yesindyref2
you really should read my reply ...dear yesindyref2<br /><br />you really should read my reply to you above - and get back to me after you've read the linked report (and had time to digest what the word "effective" means in my post)<br /><br />i'm kidding obviously - you won't read the report because you're clearly far too committed to indy at any cost to risk having your faith challenged by inconvenient factsKevin Haguehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14587343060415859159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1603438996450817644.post-26471530884521381942016-07-15T08:55:35.473-07:002016-07-15T08:55:35.473-07:00Dear Kevin Hague,
10 out of 10 for publishing a c...Dear Kevin Hague,<br /><br />10 out of 10 for publishing a critical posting, it's always sad when blogs don't.<br /><br />But you need to look up what "fiscal transfer" means, especially in the context of the UK, before using big impressive language :-)<br /><br />Oh, and I realised afterwards it was 3 mistakes.<br /><br />I know, I'm a tease, but then I've supported Indy for more than 40 years.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1603438996450817644.post-32344877886602171882016-07-15T05:38:18.969-07:002016-07-15T05:38:18.969-07:00Anonymous
I agree with you the SNP's policy t...Anonymous<br /><br />I agree with you the SNP's policy towards NATO is muddled and given the narrowness of the result in favour of that new NATO policy at their conference, this split is reflected in the leadership of the SNP and within the membership.<br /><br />However as you are probably aware, the White paper was written as a document for a political campaign, namely the independence referendum. It is not carved in stone.<br /><br />The SNP have a long history of policy u-turns (the pro-EU stance being another good example) because they are a single issue party with one objective in mind, Scottish independence. They will come up with any policy which they think will help achieve this objective.<br /><br />It is therefore very difficult to predict what policies they would actually put in place if they ever achieved their single goal of independence. <br /><br />Personally I think they would soften their stance on nuclear weapons if the practical realities of independence were ever tested. <br /><br />The UK Government and the Scottish Government would have to find an amicable deal to resolve the issue with Coulport and Faslane in the short to medium term. This would anger a lot of members and damage the party and lead to either a split or collapse of the party. But if they have achieved their prime objective of independence, then this will no longer be of a concern to them. <br /><br />You seem to want to argue both ways however. <br /><br />On the one hand you say Scotland would have very little in the way of bargaining chips and would be an outcast in the international community. Then you say NATO would fast-track Scotland's membership and ignore their own membership criteria to ensure the UK-Europe's security.<br /><br />You also argue Scotland would be suffering severe austerity but at the same time wealthy enough to maintain most of the existing defence requirements to play a role in NATO.<br /><br />You can't have it both ways.<br /><br />You also seem to think the fact the nuclear weapons are based in Scotland and might have to be safely and securely removed from Scotland in a reasonably time frame, once a new site is located and developed elsewhere in the UK, is some sort of blackmail. This is merely stating the facts. All I'm doing is pointing out some of the major security issues to be dealt with for the UK, in the unlikely event of Scottish independence.<br /><br />By the sheer fluke of geography, topography and global positioning, Scotland's wide open under populated territory and landmass is a major asset to the UK armed forces and not something it will want to give up in a hurry.<br /><br /><br /><br />Drewnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1603438996450817644.post-55087223777524215792016-07-15T01:58:34.554-07:002016-07-15T01:58:34.554-07:00dear yesindyref2 (great handle by the way, clearly...dear yesindyref2 (great handle by the way, clearly someone with an open mind)<br /><br />with your comment you demonstrate that you don't have a clue about;<br /><br />1. The concept of redundancy in language - "single solitary"<br />2. the meaning of the word "effective"<br /><br />now if you're actually interested in understanding the issue of the <i>effective></i> fiscal transfer please read this: <a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9i7kxf8EcbbTjBySFVOdmpsbjA/view" rel="nofollow">The Price of Independence</a><br /><br />I have written extensively on this subject and as it happens I know what I'm talking about.Kevin Haguehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14587343060415859159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1603438996450817644.post-28504544933693819412016-07-14T20:38:45.274-07:002016-07-14T20:38:45.274-07:00"Scotland currently receives an effective fis..."Scotland currently receives an effective fiscal transfer from the rest of the UK of over £9bn pa".<br /><br />With that one single sentence, you demonstrate in two different ways that you don't have a single solitary clue what "fiscal transfer" means in the UK. And that doesn't include the figure.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com