The specifics...
Gordon Brown said:
This was supposed to be "fast-tracked". Guess how many of these pledges have been implemented? :S
http://orderorder.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/vow.gif?w=467&h=543
Last edited:
General / Off-Topic Scottish Independence
- Thread starter Patrick_68000
- Start date
The specifics...
This was supposed to be "fast-tracked". Guess how many of these pledges have been implemented? :S
http://orderorder.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/vow.gif?w=467&h=543
Thank you for the links everyone. I kept most of the paper in the two weeks up to and the three days after the referendum. All neatly stacked in a rather nice pile. Sadly, my dear wife, looking for some stuff to add to her fortnightly contribution to the environment., (Council paper collection day every second Thursday) put them in the paper box to be take away to a landfill in China.
Keep an eye on those and wait for the rationalisations and excuses to start. I recall, even before the final results were in, (Yes, I stayed up, did you?) a representative of the Labour Party claimed that the referendum would have been No without the promises. She used a somewhat more descriptive term as I recall which was designed to be rather dismissive.
The point is, the devil's in the detail. It's already taking too long.
Keep an eye on those and wait for the rationalisations and excuses to start. I recall, even before the final results were in, (Yes, I stayed up, did you?) a representative of the Labour Party claimed that the referendum would have been No without the promises. She used a somewhat more descriptive term as I recall which was designed to be rather dismissive.
The point is, the devil's in the detail. It's already taking too long.
I'd still vote No and most of the people I know who did, would too.
Are you happy with how things have turned out post-referendum? Will it change your vote in May?
I've voted SNP in the past because I want more "region specific" focus and support - I've always disagreed with their core intent of independence so don't confuse a strong SNP vote with a strong independence vote. I was (and probably still am) going to vote SNP but I would love to hope that they don't crow about how it shows people feel betrayed by Westminster and how people really want independence now, because that's certainly not the case for me. I know this is a forlorn hope though, and they will do just that - crow. And, despite the hyperbole of those that won't let this issue go I don't actually feel that a whole lot has changed in general opinion - people are suggesting there would now be a big victory for Yes if another referendum were to be held today - I don't see it.
No, I never have done. Equally there are people who want independence but don't vote SNP because they dislike them for other reasons (Alex Salmond being a bit of a smarmy get being perhaps one...
).I think there are stronger arguments now for Indy, now that "the vow" has been shown up for what every Yes voter knew it was from the outset (a lie), so it's reasonable to think that those who voted No on that basis might change their vote.
Of course, it wouldn't affect those who are entrenched for other reasons.
But given the swings in the run up to the actual vote - a lot of people apparently made up their minds last minute.
That's an opinion - I don't see what you see. More powers were promised, more powers granted. Of course the SNP and "independence at all costs" crowd are going to cry - they always were, no matter what extra powers were granted. And the SNP will blame every difficulty, every failure of their current and upcoming reign on it - I expected nothing less.
I'd not seen that video (i've just given it a watch), but during the debate I did a similar set of calculations based off the same data set.
.
When I looked at the data I was surprised, as up until then I had only what politicians said to go on. I went into the calculation expecting iScot to come out much worse than UKScot (as I had been told by "the man in the street"). What I came out with was similar to what the video came out with, i.e. iScot was viable, but I came to some subtly different conclusions. part of that may be down to the attitudes that I brought to the process. I tend to think splitting into ever smaller more independent "lumps" is not the way to go. I think the EU, for all it's many faults, is in the main a positive force. Clearly, I'm going to be less receptive to independence movements.
.
So on to the numbers, as I said, I broadly agree with the video, although a couple of things need to be called out. so From GERS2011-12
The population of Scotland is about 5.3m which is about 8.2% of the total. So give or take 0.1% either way Scotland contributes exactly it's share of revenue per population (neglecting oil).
.
From Gers again
So, as the video says, Scotland gets more than it's pro-rata share of spend. Part of this is due to the geography and demographics of Scotland, it's more expensive to provide services in a colder, wetter, more spread out population.
.
If we look at the GERS again
So as the video says, when oil is included Scotland pays for it's "extra" spending and a bit more.
.
So on the face of that, iScot could spend as much per person as it does now (services stay the same), collect as much per person as it does now (taxes stay the same), and get a bit of a boost by keeping the extra money from oil. But that's forgetting that right now we all spend more than we earn (government wise).
.
So let's convert from % to numbers (I've colour coded so you can see the source)
.
iScot Current spend is £64.5bn, the video makes a case for saving about 1bn on defence and say 2bn on debt interest (halving it) giving an iScot state spend of around £61bn (I rounded down).
.
IScot's current revenue without oil is £46bn
.
IScot's additional revenue from oil would be around 11bn giving a total revenue of £57bn
.
That still leaves a deficit of around £3-4bn which is around 5% of government spend.
.
Now it could be that iScot could make some efficiencies in spending to bring the spend down, and some clever policies might boost the economy to bring the tax take up. It would still be just about "breaking even".
.
The crucial point is that from the above numbers iScot would be dependent on oil for about £10bn revenue or about 17.5% of income.
.
That was the calculation I made around the time of the vote. It led me (others may go in different directions) to the conclusion that iScot was dependent on oil revenues to keep the same level of taxation, whilst keeping the same level of public spending, whilst reducing the debt and starting the "oil fund". This is what the "Yes" campaign said iScot could do, and it is true, it could do it, if the oil revenues held up.
.
However if the oil revenues didn't hold up, the "Yes" campaign would not be able to deliver it's promises.
.
My original reason for resurrecting the thread was to see if any "YES" people had changed their minds in the light of the lower oil prices. Say the fall from $100+ to ~$50 halved oil revenues. Suddenly only £5bn is coming in and iScot needs to borrow £5bn, around 10% of take.
.
If anyone can point out a flaw in my calculations (have I put too much spend? Have I underestimated tax take?) let me know and I'll adjust them and my opinion. For example was the "YES" campaign proposing cuts in spending (other than the ones I outlined), were tax rises proposed?
Last edited:
I'm not sure where these proposals are, but "fast tracked" in government terms is not what we would understand as "fast tracked"!
.
My understanding was some proposals to be out by end of jan, and something before parliament before the GE?
.
My one worry, is that if too much is given away to Scotland (the "West Lothian Question" still being a valid question, will it precipitate a backlash from the rUK?
.
What we really need is in the next parliament (one probably with a strong SNP presence) is a good debate on the whole structure of the UK, should we go for a "federal" UK with Scottish, English, Welsh and Irish parliaments? I did actually propose something along those lines, I'll try to dig it up.
Everybody (except Norway) is borrowing beelbeebub. Even with challenging conditions the deficit would only be around 5% - by your numbers - which is still better than the average. It would still be better than the UK deficit but what's more important is that it would be in our hands to change it. I don't really see how spending billions on Trident, the House of Lords etc is going to do that.
Oil prices will go up as well as down. The historical trend is up and up. Right now it's experiencing a crash and the numbers still put iScotland above the majority of the industrialised world. What about when it's booming again, do you think Westminster will put some aside for the next rainy day? They didn't before so I don't see any reason they will next time.
Oil prices will go up as well as down. The historical trend is up and up. Right now it's experiencing a crash and the numbers still put iScotland above the majority of the industrialised world. What about when it's booming again, do you think Westminster will put some aside for the next rainy day? They didn't before so I don't see any reason they will next time.
The only thing I'd point out here is that it's not about the Toryism of "efficiencies" to reduce spending, but rather just don't spend the money in the first place.
Whatever is being spent on HS2, Heathrow and Trident (several billion combined) can just be wiped out of the Scottish budget entirely.
Similarly, implementing £650m measures to stop people getting the medicines they need (sorry, I meant to say "stop them getting them for free"
) would not be needed. The huge cost to the government in implementing student fees, maintaining parking officers, and other so-called "cost saving" measures that actually cost more than if they didn't exist at all - would be gone.You are making the mistake of assuming that Scotland would spend money on the same things that England does... and coming up with a shortfall. It wouldn't.
No, I never have done. Equally there are people who want independence but don't vote SNP because they dislike them for other reasons (Alex Salmond being a bit of a smarmy get being perhaps one...
Personally, I rather like Alex Salmond on a political level. Most politicians in the British Isles are a dull bunch. Pretentious poseur is perhaps a better term. Salmond is one of those rare politicians who is running his own game. Ian Paisley was another character. Powel perhaps. Heath. Jerry Adams. Michael Foot.
But that's just me. I rather like interesting people.
Respectfully I can point out a major flaw, in that the calculations are simplistic. The arithmetic may be correct, but the other factors have not been taken into consideration at all.
In an earlier post you compared Japan to the UK as it has a similar demographic. But taking demographics as you have, it is meaningless. I did try to point that out, but you don't seem to have understood at all.
I tried citing examples of two different Islands,m both with enormous problems, both with very limited resources, both being discouraged to opt for self determination. Both took it, both succeeded.
Your figures, as presented, pale into insignificance, compared to the most obvious figures which could have been used to support the status quo in both of those cases. Yet both societies are now very comfortable and self supporting.
Perhaps the major mistake you seem to make is your assumption that wealth and prosperity is about how much money you have.
Difficut to understand I know. It may help if you look at that guy who won several million on the lottery and is now broke and signing on. Yet many others, live very comfortably on very little. My wife and I included. (Two adults, total household income less than £12K. No debts. No unpaid bills. I for one and getting concerned about my weight. ie not hungry.
)That is exactly the problem, In a nut shell.
It is also a reality and happening right now. I live on S coast, within the sphere of London. (Hampshire to be exact). The resentment is very real and seems to be mirrored in Scotland and N England.
More, I suggest the resentment is predictable. And the resentment is planned.
If we fight each other, the UK can step in and sort it all out. But the UK caused the problems.
The UK isn't England. It isn't Scotland. It isn't both or all. It is an entity in itself that looks after itself. More, it causes wars and killing.
If you read carefully, I was not comparing the UK to japan. I was saying the demographics of Scotland, although slightly different from the rUK, are similar when looked at in the context of the differences between the UK and other nations like Japan or China.
I can't speak about Mauritius, but i'm not sure Iceland compares well with Scotland. It did suffer terribly in the 2008 and is now recovering. However kt's recipe for recovery is (from the economist)
- Allow your ailing banks to collapse;
- devalue your currency if you have one of your own;
- introduce capital controls;
- Try to avoid paying back foreign debts.
I believe Iceland owes some $20bn to Germany at the mo. A big chunk to the UK as well, all the UK "icesave" depositors were compensated by the UK gov.
.
Capital controls are extremely unpopular, and currency devaluation is difficult if you don't have your own currency (see Greece)
well, technically speaking wealth and prosperity are measured by bow much money you have!
however if you mean happiness then absolutely, wealth/money are not directly related to happiness. proof of the above!Yet many others, live very comfortably on very little. My wife and I included. (Two adults, total household income less than £12K. No debts. No unpaid bills. I for one and getting concerned about my weight. ie not hungry.
:
The whole "economy" debate was only ever part of the question. Even if it could be proved 100% that every scotsman would be £500worse off in iScot, there would be some who would see that as an acceptable price for being independent. Conversely there would be some who would vote for union even if it was economically worse.
:
As i said earlier, i was just interested if the fall in oil prices has changed anyone's opinion.
:
My take was the fall would make the "yes" economic case harder to fulfil.
I can only reiterate.
Demographics taken in the context you have made are simply interesting. One house has 2 adults and 3 children, the house across the road has 2 adults and three children. Are the two the same? Can any conclusions be drawn form this information?
The point about Mauritius and Iceland and many other similar states is, like Scotland, people were bombarded with every continuing claims and references, all designed to give the impression that these states would be worse off governing themselves.
In every case these states have been enormously successful. The living standards of the majority of people have risen. They have few if any military threats simply because they do not present any threat to anyone else.
Nope, I suggest you read up on your Freedman and Keynes.
Demographics taken in the context you have made are simply interesting. One house has 2 adults and 3 children, the house across the road has 2 adults and three children. Are the two the same? Can any conclusions be drawn form this information?
The point about Mauritius and Iceland and many other similar states is, like Scotland, people were bombarded with every continuing claims and references, all designed to give the impression that these states would be worse off governing themselves.
In every case these states have been enormously successful. The living standards of the majority of people have risen. They have few if any military threats simply because they do not present any threat to anyone else.
Nope, I suggest you read up on your Freedman and Keynes.
I don't see what difference it makes. It wasn't an election where you were voting for this policy or that. It was a referendum to decide if we should decide these things for ourselves or have the decisions taken out of our hands.
Presently, the Scottish people voted for the latter.
I expect that to change in another referendum (for other reasons) - which may be coming sooner than you think... especially if the SNP end up with (as expected) more than 50 seats after May.
I think you overestimate the feeling of change of opinion - I see none of it. Nobody I know who voted No has changed their mind. All we have is some Yes rhetoric as far as I can see.
And what happens if they did have another one and the result is the same (i.e. No? Or maybe Yes if they decide it's only fair to give the affirmative option to the Union favouring side the next time)? Do we say another year later "oh wait, look another opinion poll, let's try again... again... again", wasting millions each time? Creating continual doubt for people looking at investing in Scotland?
It's a joke. Things of this magnitude should have an limit of them, maybe like "this is it for 30 years, make your choice with due consideration".
The people I know who voted No think differently... so there we are. All anecdotal.
I agree with you. There should be a limit on it.
This is a little surprising. I was expecting this to come out rather nearer to the election. It's such a strong card for the Tories, but one which could so easily blow up in their faces if someone with any intelligence took over from Milhouse.
It may be a sign of some greater division within the Tory ranks. To his credit, Cameron has been a tough leader. But like Mihouse and Clegg he did wet his pants early Sept when faced with Salmond.
Perhaps that did more harm to his credibility that we imagined.
The copy is from Today's Indy
I haven't seen any change of opinion amongst my No voting family (all relatively well-off Labour voters) either. On the other hand, we'll see how they feel with the SNP in perennial control of Scotlands taxation (10p on the top rate? Sure why not) and a Tory/UKIP euro exit on the cards.
30 years is far too long to wait. 30 years ago Thatcher destroyed mining and steelworking communities all over Scotland. Most of the kids from that time voted No because many got rich and forgot what happened to their parents.
Last edited: