Scottish Referendum / Independence - Vol 8
Discussion
Rollin said:
He expects projects south of the border to be halted so that Scotland can receive more subsidy.
No, just a proper allocation of consewuential spending which has been refused on both of these.We pay into UK taxation which pays for these super-projects, but we get nothing back to Scotland beyond our regular pocket-money.
GoneAnon said:
No, just a proper allocation of consewuential spending which has been refused on both of these.
We pay into UK taxation which pays for these super-projects, but we get nothing back to Scotland beyond our regular pocket-money.
But the SNP say we get £15bn more in pocket money than we send to the exchequer.We pay into UK taxation which pays for these super-projects, but we get nothing back to Scotland beyond our regular pocket-money.
GoneAnon said:
simoid said:
But the SNP say we get £15bn more in pocket money than we send to the exchequer.
Source?http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16477990
Unfortunately since then oil demand has tanked and now even including oil in the "income per head" Scotland receives more than it pays in.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/nicola-st...
GoneAnon said:
Rollin said:
He expects projects south of the border to be halted so that Scotland can receive more subsidy.
No, just a proper allocation of consewuential spending which has been refused on both of these.We pay into UK taxation which pays for these super-projects, but we get nothing back to Scotland beyond our regular pocket-money.
Secondly the GERS figures as used by the scogov explicitly are based on excluding those before you end up with the almighty £15bn in Scottish finances: to quote Kevin Hague:
http://chokkablog.blogspot.co.uk/2016/07/gers-deni...
article said:
4. Scotland pays for things that we get no benefit from, like the Olympics, Crossrail, London Sewers, HS2, etc
This comes up a lot from people who haven’t bothered to understand how the GERS figures work. At its simplest, the GERS methodology works to include only expenditure in Scotland or Scotland’s share of value from expenditure outside Scotland. This is clearly explained in the GERS detailed expenditure methodology paper.
Let’s take Olympic Games costs as an example. To quote the current GERS detailed expenditure methodology paper (page 3):
“as discussed in previous editions of GERS, all capital expenditure associated with the Olympics has been assigned to the rest of the UK, primarily London and surrounding area, on the basis that Scotland will not receive a lasting benefit from the infrastructure and regeneration associated with the games. Current expenditure on the Olympics has been assigned across the countries and regions of the UK using the estimated regional distribution of the associated increase in tourism expenditure.”
Another widely quoted example is HS2. Because Scotland’s share of the economic value of HS2 is assessed to be 2%, this is the figure used in GERS (page 77).
“Within GERS, the expenditure has been apportioned to Scotland in line with the regional breakdown of the benefits of High Speed 2 reported within The Economic Case for HS2, published by the Department for Transport. This assigns Scotland 2% of the total expenditure.”
The same page of the GERS report explains the more general point which would apply to the likes of London's Crossrail project
“As discussed in previous editions of GERS, railways expenditure, alongside expenditure on roads, is apportioned to Scotland on an 'in' basis. This means that expenditure 'in' Scotland on railways is apportioned to Scottish public sector expenditure while, where possible, a zero share is allocated to Scotland for all expenditure on rail across the rest of the UK. This required a number of modifications to the underlying CRA data which affected the expenditure by London and Continental Railways, the Channel Tunnel Rail link, and Network Rail.”
So in short you aren't paying for uk super Projects. Meanwhile we are paying for you to discriminate against English students, wreck the Scottish economy and allow the SNP to Indoctrinate a generation into believing the UK is a drain.This comes up a lot from people who haven’t bothered to understand how the GERS figures work. At its simplest, the GERS methodology works to include only expenditure in Scotland or Scotland’s share of value from expenditure outside Scotland. This is clearly explained in the GERS detailed expenditure methodology paper.
Let’s take Olympic Games costs as an example. To quote the current GERS detailed expenditure methodology paper (page 3):
“as discussed in previous editions of GERS, all capital expenditure associated with the Olympics has been assigned to the rest of the UK, primarily London and surrounding area, on the basis that Scotland will not receive a lasting benefit from the infrastructure and regeneration associated with the games. Current expenditure on the Olympics has been assigned across the countries and regions of the UK using the estimated regional distribution of the associated increase in tourism expenditure.”
Another widely quoted example is HS2. Because Scotland’s share of the economic value of HS2 is assessed to be 2%, this is the figure used in GERS (page 77).
“Within GERS, the expenditure has been apportioned to Scotland in line with the regional breakdown of the benefits of High Speed 2 reported within The Economic Case for HS2, published by the Department for Transport. This assigns Scotland 2% of the total expenditure.”
The same page of the GERS report explains the more general point which would apply to the likes of London's Crossrail project
“As discussed in previous editions of GERS, railways expenditure, alongside expenditure on roads, is apportioned to Scotland on an 'in' basis. This means that expenditure 'in' Scotland on railways is apportioned to Scottish public sector expenditure while, where possible, a zero share is allocated to Scotland for all expenditure on rail across the rest of the UK. This required a number of modifications to the underlying CRA data which affected the expenditure by London and Continental Railways, the Channel Tunnel Rail link, and Network Rail.”
But I suspect you knew that all already.
Ridgemont said:
So in short you aren't paying for uk super Projects. Meanwhile we are paying for you to discriminate against English students, wreck the Scottish economy and allow the SNP to Indoctrinate a generation into believing the UK is a drain.
But I suspect you knew that all already.
He wont listen as hes been indoctrinated. Well theyve got 2 days now to decide on if they want to hold another one or not. Hopefully Jimmy will be put back in the box and she can start helping the UK than trying to get it divided.But I suspect you knew that all already.
I wonder if theyll go for independence should the grass be greener out of the EU? Someone told me or i read that the Whisky industry is worth 6bill currently and has potential to be 60bill (cant remember the numbers but its alot more) out of the EU
Ridgemont said:
So in short you aren't paying for uk super Projects. Meanwhile we are paying for you to discriminate against English students, wreck the Scottish economy and allow the SNP to Indoctrinate a generation into believing the UK is a drain.
But I suspect you knew that all already.
Let's not forget the £15bn funding gap in Scotland which is filled by the rest of the UK (mainly England) is just the cash. That is before we get to the public sector jobs which are funnelled into Scotland and the big projects which are placed there (e.g. Aircraft Carriers), the defence jobs etc.But I suspect you knew that all already.
Would paying road tolls have kept the maintenance budget for the Forth Road Bridge at proper levels?
Since lack of maintenance was a huge part of it's failure and the resultant traffic problems for weeks.
Free uni places aren't free. The money that covers the fees could be spent elsewhere, would paying part fees have reduced the loss of 150,000 places in the last 10 years?
Since lack of maintenance was a huge part of it's failure and the resultant traffic problems for weeks.
Free uni places aren't free. The money that covers the fees could be spent elsewhere, would paying part fees have reduced the loss of 150,000 places in the last 10 years?
Moonhawk said:
andymadmak said:
SilverSixer said:
Scotland elected an SNP government, you can hardly blame that government for implementing its manifesto.
And the UK elected a Conservative Government which had a clear manifesto pledge to offer an in/out Referendum on EU membership - you can hardly blame that Government for implementing its manifesto.........SilverSixer said:
That was BEFORE the 2015 UK General Election. Nobody knew if the Tories would win a majority and be able to implement any manifesto commitments. The EU Referendum was not 'likely' at that stage. It was merely possible, as it ever was.
Didn't you believe Alex Salmond in 2014 then?(Reuters) - "Scottish nationalist leader Alex Salmond said on Tuesday that the biggest threat to Scotland staying in the European Union was British Prime Minister David Cameron's pledge to hold an in-out referendum on membership by 2017.
Salmond, the Scottish first minister, said he was confident that Scotland would be welcomed as an EU member if it voted on September. 18 to leave the United Kingdom after more than three centuries to become an independent nation."
simoid said:
SilverSixer said:
That was BEFORE the 2015 UK General Election. Nobody knew if the Tories would win a majority and be able to implement any manifesto commitments. The EU Referendum was not 'likely' at that stage. It was merely possible, as it ever was.
Didn't you believe Alex Salmond in 2014 then?(Reuters) - "Scottish nationalist leader Alex Salmond said on Tuesday that the biggest threat to Scotland staying in the European Union was British Prime Minister David Cameron's pledge to hold an in-out referendum on membership by 2017.
Salmond, the Scottish first minister, said he was confident that Scotland would be welcomed as an EU member if it voted on September. 18 to leave the United Kingdom after more than three centuries to become an independent nation."
However, I'm not sure you can deny that the he wasn't right saying that Cameron's foolish proposal to hold referendum in the event of a Tory majority government was the biggest threat to Scotland's place in the EU. That's the way it's turning out, after all.
If I remember rightly, most commentators were surprised that the Tories won a majority in 2015. Personally I wasn't surprised at all, I could conceive of no circumstances in which the UK would elect Milliband and thought that anti-Milliband feeling and the threat of a Labour-SNP coalition in Westminster would be sufficient to return a Tory majority. None of this means I 'believed' Alex Salmond about anything. He's just a politician spouting his agenda like all of them. What does surprise me is that people seem to find that fact surprising, and seem to think it shouldn't be so. It's politics.
SilverSixer said:
That was BEFORE the 2015 UK General Election. Nobody knew if the Tories would win a majority and be able to implement any manifesto commitments. The EU Referendum was not 'likely' at that stage. It was merely possible, as it ever was.
Sorry I don't buy that for one second.The manifesto pledge was made 18 month before the Scottish independence referendum - and a Tory majority was always possible (even likely given the state of their main opponents).
Also, even if the Tories hadn't got in - by making such a pledge, I believe they set an inevitable ball in motion. An EU referendum had been discussed for years and there was enough public feeling to make one inevitable regardless of who got in.
By accepting to remain part of the UK, Scotland accepted all that entails, including the fact that in the event of such a vote, they could well be carried along with the rest of the UK given their relatively small population.
Also - i'm still struggling to see why leaving the EU is such a big deal for the nats anyway - given they were fully prepared to exit off the back of gaining Scottish independence.
Indeed. Hindsight and all that!
My angle was that it seems to be a favourite line of the nationalists these days that Scotland is being dragged kicking and screaming out of Europe and it was totally unforeseeable in 2014. I think we're in agreement that it was always a possibility.
If you want to be in the EU, the choice in isolation in 2014 was:
Leave UK and take your chances convincing Spain et al they need/want Scotland in the EU.
Stay in UK and take your (admittedly good) chances that UK doesn't get a Tory majority, and if it does then it doesn't vote to Leave.
(To Silver)
My angle was that it seems to be a favourite line of the nationalists these days that Scotland is being dragged kicking and screaming out of Europe and it was totally unforeseeable in 2014. I think we're in agreement that it was always a possibility.
If you want to be in the EU, the choice in isolation in 2014 was:
Leave UK and take your chances convincing Spain et al they need/want Scotland in the EU.
Stay in UK and take your (admittedly good) chances that UK doesn't get a Tory majority, and if it does then it doesn't vote to Leave.
(To Silver)
GoneAnon said:
2015 manifesto can be found at http://votesnp.com/docs/manifesto.pdf
Page 9
Opposing withdrawal from the European Union
At least 330,000 Scottish jobs – around one in seven of
all jobs - are dependent on our membership of the single
market.
I don't remember that 'factoid' being cited in the YeSNPs Scottish independence white paper - wonder why Page 9
Opposing withdrawal from the European Union
At least 330,000 Scottish jobs – around one in seven of
all jobs - are dependent on our membership of the single
market.
Moonhawk said:
GoneAnon said:
2015 manifesto can be found at http://votesnp.com/docs/manifesto.pdf
Page 9
Opposing withdrawal from the European Union
At least 330,000 Scottish jobs – around one in seven of
all jobs - are dependent on our membership of the single
market.
I don't remember that 'factoid' being cited in the YeSNPs Scottish independence white paper - wonder why Page 9
Opposing withdrawal from the European Union
At least 330,000 Scottish jobs – around one in seven of
all jobs - are dependent on our membership of the single
market.
Dicky Knee said:
Moonhawk said:
GoneAnon said:
2015 manifesto can be found at http://votesnp.com/docs/manifesto.pdf
Page 9
Opposing withdrawal from the European Union
At least 330,000 Scottish jobs – around one in seven of
all jobs - are dependent on our membership of the single
market.
I don't remember that 'factoid' being cited in the YeSNPs Scottish independence white paper - wonder why Page 9
Opposing withdrawal from the European Union
At least 330,000 Scottish jobs – around one in seven of
all jobs - are dependent on our membership of the single
market.
Patrick Bateman said:
Anyone seen the latest in The National with Professor Murphy essentially saying GERS figures are useless?
I don't recall the SNP saying they were useless when oil was raking it in 3 years ago.
Kevin Hague gives Murphy a bit of a hiding here:I don't recall the SNP saying they were useless when oil was raking it in 3 years ago.
http://chokkablog.blogspot.co.uk/2017/03/richard-m...
Prof. Murphy.
'Nuff said.
Irrelevant though. There's enough documented evidence to show how the SNP and their supporters have flipped their position over GERs figures so it is just more self-inflicted wounds to their credibility.
The biggest problem the SNP now have is their own baggage - inconsistent and contradictory messages, flat denials of evidence-based facts, u-turns over policy. When they popped up from under the media radar they could get away with being cavalier about facts and proclamations, but now they have put themselves under the spotlight - not any more!
On the subject of flipping positions - there's a very good reason why Nicola Sturgeon pushed for a 2018/19 indyref 2 that has nothing to do with Brexit and everything to do with getting over the s.30 hurdle with the support of the Greens before stabbing them in the back over fracking. The deal with INEOS has already been inked, apparently....
'Nuff said.
Irrelevant though. There's enough documented evidence to show how the SNP and their supporters have flipped their position over GERs figures so it is just more self-inflicted wounds to their credibility.
The biggest problem the SNP now have is their own baggage - inconsistent and contradictory messages, flat denials of evidence-based facts, u-turns over policy. When they popped up from under the media radar they could get away with being cavalier about facts and proclamations, but now they have put themselves under the spotlight - not any more!
On the subject of flipping positions - there's a very good reason why Nicola Sturgeon pushed for a 2018/19 indyref 2 that has nothing to do with Brexit and everything to do with getting over the s.30 hurdle with the support of the Greens before stabbing them in the back over fracking. The deal with INEOS has already been inked, apparently....
Edited by r11co on Tuesday 21st March 13:48
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff