|
|
Post by jaydee on Jan 11, 2023 10:12:34 GMT
Ah Mr stupid at his best. You know after the stupidity you continually post and shot down in flames each time. Do you never get embarrassed. Do you think one day somebody In Scotland might actually do something right. Allow me to do another copy and paste. This does not suggest. It is actual fact. As England will remain between the 28th and 38th Richest country in the world. And the worst performing economy in the G7. Which is bog standard third world, the sick man of Europe as it drags Scotland with it. The latest figures I have. Not including oil and gas, Scotland sold £86.4 billion in goods and services to England. England sold £93.4 billions in goods and services to Scotland. Scotland in terms of countries is England's largest trading partner with exports to Scotland greater than to Brazil, South Africa, Russia,. India, China and Japan put together. The jock haters are suggesting that some future arsehole English chancellor is going to put millions on the dole in England and destroy nearly £200 billion worth of trade. While not so long ago The Queen and Phil dined the Chinese PM complete with changing of the guard at Buck house. To do a deal for Hinkley Point at £6 billion. The Chinese have pulled out as they do not trust bankrupt England. Scotland is the only UK nation to have exported more goods internationally than it has imported every year since records began. In terms of exports per head, Scotland outperforms the UK: Scotland exports £17,455 per head per year, while England exports £8,626 per head per year. Scotland is an exporting powerhouse, whose success has had nothing to do with being part of the UK, but whose future has been jeopardised due to the UK taking Scotland out of the European Union. While bankrupt England has been totally relient on financial services, bankrupt London having lost its place to Paris. I am still paying for the last London fuck up nearly 15 years ago. The next one is coming. The second Scotland does leave the Union, that's when, not if, bankrupt England will have to at a minimum borrow £100 billion a year more than it does now. That just to stand still. On top of bankrupt England's massive domestic debt of some £2,8 trillion. Yes that really is £2,800,000,000,000. Rising at over £5,000 per second. On top of bankrupt England's external debt of some $8.73 trillion USD. Yes that really is $8,730,000,000,000 beaten only by the USofA, On top of bankrupts England's massive energy problem coming in at around £600 billion. I gave you details. If wrong correct it. Instead of doing stupid by just saying it. You put your cost on it. Go have a look at the cost of hinkley Point. Then multiply it by 9. That's todays cost. By the time it comes on stream double it. ie £1200 billion. Have you worked out potholes, ferry fuck ups, pensioners, health, education and so on. As you cheered on motor mouth. Now could i suggest you actually read the link you posted and read what it says.I have a better idea. You tell me how much trade England would lose. Or does your little silly brain only think it is a one way thing. The answer it yes. Scotland is England's largest trading partner. And million would be tossed on the dole in England. Scotland will by then be in the EU and they will protect the interest of it's members. Could I suggest, no I will tell you. That all Englishmen are not as stupid as you. Or the one's who rant shite on this forum. And there is not a chance in hell is any Chancellor or the EU going to put that trade at risk. So stop talking your normal havering slastering shite. And grasp reality. As that is what your stupidity is getting at. That is not what your link is saying. And what it is saying England is anything but immune. Which is frankly written for clowns to believe. But that aside. So how about you telling me on that criteria how much more would bankrupt England lose. In terms of the so called loss of £11 billion. If it happened. Its peanuts. To put that in perspective. The budget of Glasgow is around £3 billion. In terms of defence procurement. Scotland is screwed out of some £6 billion a year. That is around half back already. I could go on but I am wasting my breath with you. I have another better idea. How about you giving me one benefit economically that Scotland would gain by being part of bankrupt England. And as I keep telling you matey. Look at your own debt now. Nothing to do with Scotland. The Scottish taxpayer has to pay around £4 billion a year on that. Thats £10 billion back on that nonsense. Or to put it simple. When Scotland goes. It will be around £100 billion a year richer. England will be the same poorer. Let me make this nice and simple for you. To put it another way Scotland can no longer afford bankrupt England. |
|
|
|
Post by jaydee on Jan 11, 2023 10:27:36 GMT
Hi Om15 again Just to clarify. Reports such as this assume independent Scotland will continue to do everything in exactly the same way as it was done in the UK. Forever. I don’t think that it does assume that. It makes clear that it does not consider anything other than the trade effects of independence so it does not even consider, never mind make assumptions about, anything else that an independent Scotland might do ie. “ In this briefing, we restrict our analysis to trade effects and do not consider other potentially important economic effects of Scottish independence, such as changes in investment flows into and out of Scotland, whether Scotland continues to use sterling as its currency and the fiscal implications of independence”. If they had considered these issues then their conclusions would surely have been even worse than the figures highlighted by om15... bearing in mind, for example, the £20 billion per annum hit to the public finances (per GERS reports) and the additional costs of borrowing due to a lower credit rating and an increase in rates of interest generally (borrowing costs in general are currently on a clear upward trend after sitting at record lows for years) that an Indy Scotland would face.
The other big takeaway item from this report is that rejoining the EU, the reason that most of the Yes side gives to justify another indyref, would result in even further damage to an Indy Scotland’s economy and therefore bring even more hardship to bear on the Scottish people ie.
“The analysis highlights a paradox in the economic argument that Scotland should become independent in order to rejoin the EU. For an independent Scotland to be better off inside the EU, independence must destroy a sufficiently large share of Scotland’s trade with the rest of the UK that the EU becomes Scotland’s most important trade partner. However, the more independence reduces trade, the greater its economic costs. In other words, for rejoining the EU to be economically desirable, independence itself must bring substantial economic costs.
Our estimates should be interpreted as the long-run effects of Brexit and independence after the economy has adjusted to changes in trade costs. Brexit studies typically argue that it will take 10-15 years for the full effects to materialise (Sampson 2017; HMG 2018). Adjustment to Scottish independence is likely to be even slower and may take a generation or more, as border costs gradually increase due to divergence between economic policy and regulations in the two countries and the erosion of existing cultural, social and business ties.
This slow adjustment means that in the initial decades after independence the rest of the UK will continue to be Scotland’s most important trade partner. Consequently, even if in the long- run there is an economic case for an independent Scotland to rejoin the EU, we conclude that Scotland’s medium-run priority following independence should be keeping border costs with the rest of the UK as low as possible”Ah. The risk assessment man. Has nobody told you GERs is a load of drivel. And what did OM15 tell you. Let me tell you what he said. On that shite. England would have taken a bigger hit than Scotland. But could not supply a figure Sv he thinks in his stupidity. It is only going to affect Scotland On top of its massive debt. All pointed out to you in my last post. Did your famous risk assessment take that into account. Now how about you telling me how indy would bring on increased cost to Scotland only. Now there is the Westminster wankers ranting they have taken back control. And with the border they voted for with the EU it has been so wonderful. How is itg suddenly not so wonderful when that EU border will be Scotland. And would you care to correct anything in my last post. You do rant some slastering drivel. Stick to wee baby girl writing. Your capitals trying to make out it is big grown up writing, makes you look even more clueless. www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2017/09/04/my-thanks-to-the-fraser-of-allander-for-agreeing-i-am-right-on-gers-now-lets-have-the-debate-on-what-to-do-about-it/ |
|
|
|
Post by happyjack on Jan 11, 2023 11:07:27 GMT
The assumption that if you move outside the scope of the report, then ANYTHING independent Scotland could consider doing different than it does inside the uk, would make a difficult situation worse, is YOUR assumption? Right? No, that is not my assumption. My assumption is that, just like every other country in the world, an independent Scotland would make some decisions that would improve its situation, some decisions that would prove damaging, and some decisions that would make little difference one way or another. My assumption is that an independent Scotland would not improve things enough (if at all) to justify the costs and the risks associated with independence. So are you saying that there are NO changes to the way scotland does things within the UK that could improve things? Not a single thing? No, I am not saying that either. In the same way that an independent Scotland would make some good choices and some bad choices, so would a Scotland that remained part of the UK. The 2 key differences are
(1) a devolved Scotland is, and would continue to be, constrained in the scope of what it can do, so the choices it would be able to make could never be so far-reaching as those that an independent Scotland could make.Therefore its potential to improve or to damage things would be limited in comparison to that of an independent Scotland, and
(2) a devolved Scotland would not incur the costs, or be exposed to the risks, associated with independence that an independent Scotland would incur and be exposed to.
|
|
|
|
Post by research0it on Jan 11, 2023 11:33:10 GMT
It's a hugely difficult task for the uk government to dig the uk out of the economic hole it's dug for 40 odd years. The uk is on a long slow economic decline. Do you wonder why the markets reacted so badly at the mini budget? After all cutting taxes for the rich and corporations is what conservatives do. They didn't do anything different than normal. Yet this time it was different. So I investigated. Since the 1980s the uk economy has changed from making and selling things to doing things It sells financial services. Success depends on the markets having confidence that these services add value and it's all underpinned by money flowing through London, and rapidly rising London property prices. This has resulted in one of the most unequal economies on earth, ,with London almost twice as rich as the 2nd richest economic region (Scotland). The outcome is that London is over developed and the rest of the country under developed. Scotland is the region with the most potential. Here we have huge natural resources. Water wind coastline and topography combine to produce a region that could be a renewables king of the world and a global warming oasis. Yet we run a deficit. There are not enough high tax payers to cover the costs of our public services, despite the potential. Why? Because we're under developed. Why? Because we don't get investment. We don't get public sector investment because the uk government can't tear itself away from the tax paying teat of London, so doesn't want to divert significant investment from London. We don't get private sector investment because investors are, say, choosing between investing in a tidal energy scheme off the western Isles, paying a steady 3%, or simply buying a mansion in London, paying 10 to 15%. What are they going to do? The mini budget, opened a curtain and exposed the giant Ponsi scheme that the uk economy has become. They've managed to close the curtain a bit again, but long term, events will happen that will open it again and it will get more and more difficult to put back. Long slow decline is inevitable. UK wise, does any party have the courage and means to tackle this? Tony Blair found it too difficult. He just raised more taxes from London and redistributed. Not a long term answer. Which is to develop the wealth producing regions of the uk and lessen investment in London. A painful road. Should scotland therefore leave and do it itself? It is also a painful risky road. Will we be smart enough? Will we use the huge natural resources for the people rather than multi nationals? We will still be attached to the rUK, so London may still draw away investment. It's a question of whether to take the chance rather than be tied to an economy that will always prioritise London and be in a long slow decline. The only thing I would counsel to Scots is to decide on what you want the future to look like and the most likely route to get there, not on current competencies and make up of administrations in Edinburgh or London. Scottish Secretary currently says otherwise: www.gov.uk/government/news/levelling-up-reaches-new-heights-in-scotland#:~:text=The%20UK%20Government's%20funding%20for,of%20further%20investment%20in%202023. Scotland has already had over 2 billion pumped into it. And perhaps your own SNP government could raise these concerns instead of ignoring and failing in policy areas rather than bang the same old tired 'moaning mindset' they have been doing re. independene. Hi buccaneer 2 billion is a drop in the ocean compared to what London gets in investment from public and private sources. But you're right about one thing. I don't know why the SNP cannot expand on and develop the issues contained in the OP, and give us all an idea of what they'd do about it. |
|
|
|
Post by happyjack on Jan 11, 2023 11:38:32 GMT
I don’t think that it does assume that. It makes clear that it does not consider anything other than the trade effects of independence so it does not even consider, never mind make assumptions about, anything else that an independent Scotland might do ie. “ In this briefing, we restrict our analysis to trade effects and do not consider other potentially important economic effects of Scottish independence, such as changes in investment flows into and out of Scotland, whether Scotland continues to use sterling as its currency and the fiscal implications of independence”. If they had considered these issues then their conclusions would surely have been even worse than the figures highlighted by om15... bearing in mind, for example, the £20 billion per annum hit to the public finances (per GERS reports) and the additional costs of borrowing due to a lower credit rating and an increase in rates of interest generally (borrowing costs in general are currently on a clear upward trend after sitting at record lows for years) that an Indy Scotland would face.
The other big takeaway item from this report is that rejoining the EU, the reason that most of the Yes side gives to justify another indyref, would result in even further damage to an Indy Scotland’s economy and therefore bring even more hardship to bear on the Scottish people ie.
“The analysis highlights a paradox in the economic argument that Scotland should become independent in order to rejoin the EU. For an independent Scotland to be better off inside the EU, independence must destroy a sufficiently large share of Scotland’s trade with the rest of the UK that the EU becomes Scotland’s most important trade partner. However, the more independence reduces trade, the greater its economic costs. In other words, for rejoining the EU to be economically desirable, independence itself must bring substantial economic costs.
Our estimates should be interpreted as the long-run effects of Brexit and independence after the economy has adjusted to changes in trade costs. Brexit studies typically argue that it will take 10-15 years for the full effects to materialise (Sampson 2017; HMG 2018). Adjustment to Scottish independence is likely to be even slower and may take a generation or more, as border costs gradually increase due to divergence between economic policy and regulations in the two countries and the erosion of existing cultural, social and business ties.
This slow adjustment means that in the initial decades after independence the rest of the UK will continue to be Scotland’s most important trade partner. Consequently, even if in the long- run there is an economic case for an independent Scotland to rejoin the EU, we conclude that Scotland’s medium-run priority following independence should be keeping border costs with the rest of the UK as low as possible” Has nobody told you GERs is a load of drivel. Yes, you and the couple of Indy fanatics on this and/or on the old site have told me that many times, but that is what is drivel, not the GERS figures.
It is obviously a forlorn hope, but try to read and understand the following ie.
fraserofallander.org/gers-guide/
fraserofallander.org/gers-2022-the-main-headlines-and-what-does-it-really-tell-us/
In particular, given that you and the other GERS deniers all make the same points, you should note the content of the following extract from the 2nd link above ie.
“In summary though, to go through the main claims usually made about GERS:
GERS is an accredited National Statistics produced by statisticians in the Scottish Government (so is not produced by the UK Government) and is a serious attempt to understand the key fiscal facts under the current constitutional arrangement
Some people look to discredit the veracity of GERS because it relies – in part – on estimation. Estimation is a part of all economic statistics and is not a reason to dismiss the figures as “made up”.
Will the numbers change if you make different reasonable assumptions about the bits of GERS that are estimated? In short, not to any great extent.”
Oh, and you should also note this extract too ie.
“GERS does provide an accurate picture of where Scotland is in 2022. In doing so it sets the starting point for a discussion about the immediate choices, opportunities and challenges that need to be addressed by those advocating new fiscal arrangements. And here the challenge is stark, with a likely deficit far in excess of the UK as a whole, other comparable countries or that which is deemed to be sustainable in the long-term. It is not enough to say ‘everything will be fine’ or ‘look at this country, they can run a sensible fiscal balance so why can’t Scotland?’. Concrete proposals and ideas are needed.”
Stick to wee baby girl writing. Your capitals trying to make out it is big grown up writing, makes you look even more clueless. What capitals? |
|
|
|
Post by research0it on Jan 11, 2023 11:44:31 GMT
The assumption that if you move outside the scope of the report, then ANYTHING independent Scotland could consider doing different than it does inside the uk, would make a difficult situation worse, is YOUR assumption? Right? No, that is not my assumption. My assumption is that, just like every other country in the world, an independent Scotland would make some decisions that would improve its situation, some decisions that would prove damaging, and some decisions that would make little difference one way or another. My assumption is that an independent Scotland would not improve things enough to justify the costs and the risks associated with independence. So are you saying that there are NO changes to the way scotland does things within the UK that could improve things? Not a single thing? No, I am not saying that either. In the same way that an independent Scotland would make some good choices and some bad choices, so would a Scotland that remained part of the UK. The 2 key differences are
(1) a devolved Scotland is, and would continue to be, constrained in the scope of what it can do, so the choices it would be able to make could never be so far-reaching as those that an independent Scotland could make.Therefore its potential to improve or to damage things would be limited in comparison to that of an independent Scotland, and
(2) a devolved Scotland would not incur the costs, or be exposed to the risks, associated with independence that an independent Scotland would incur and be exposed to.
Hi happyjack Don't think there is too much unreasonable in what you write and, as I referred to in the OP, it's balancing risk and reward. So I'll be brave and outline my proposal for successful independent Scotland. 1. Quit the uk 2. Approach the EU and offer the following deal. Scotland, according to some sources, if fully developed could supply between 35 and 55% of the entire energy needs of the EU. It needs investment to fully develop. Such investment would produce infrastructure along the lines of hydro and hydrogen storage, grid infrastructure and connectors. The EU would pay for the infrastructure in the EU. It would give scotland an interest free loan for infrastructure in Scotland. Scotland, in return, would give the EU half price energy until the payback period is reached. The advantage for the EU is that, long term it would have up to 55% of its energy from an EU member. The advantage from Scotland's is that it would get the investment needed to develop cheaply and that it would be a member of the EU as an independent country (just note that I'm not interested in debating with those who think that statement is controversial), and could call more of the shots than it can in the UK. |
|
|
|
Post by happyjack on Jan 11, 2023 12:19:21 GMT
Hi research0it,
Just to be clear, does your proposal involve Scotland rejoining the EU? You don’t actually expressly say that in your outline, but you last 2 paragraphs imply that this is what you envisage. If so, do you think that this is a necessary part of the proposal or could Scotland make such a deal with the EU without taking out EU membership, and therefore without putting up damaging trading barriers with rUK, with whom over 60% of Scotland’s “non-domestic” trade takes place.
Also, while you say that Scotland has the potential to provide a sizeable chunk of the EU’s energy needs, surely the EU would have other options and other sources available to it. If so, why would your plan be more attractive to the EU than other options? Would no other EU member state be able to provide Scotland with competition here...and how much would sourcing from an EU state really matter? I realise, particularly given the recent events in and resulting from Russia’s invasion of the Ukraine, that this would be a positive factor, but if we were not in the EU we would still presumably be considered a reliable and friendly partner (although, maybe you think that the EU would feel that dealing with a newly established and non-EU country would be too risky and therefore insist upon our membership of the EU, I guess).
|
|
|
|
Post by om15 on Jan 11, 2023 12:39:19 GMT
It is pipe dreams like this that encourage those without the power of thought to believe the SNP nonsense. All your power is owned by the Spanish anyway, just concentrate on teaching your children the alphabet and fill in your pot holes.
|
|
|
|
Post by happyjack on Jan 11, 2023 12:44:32 GMT
There is nothing wrong with some Blue Sky thinking, om15. That’s where many game-changing ideas come from.
|
|
|
|
Post by research0it on Jan 11, 2023 12:53:53 GMT
Hi research0it, Just to be clear, does your proposal involve Scotland rejoining the EU? You don’t actually expressly say that in your outline, but you last 2 paragraphs imply that this is what you envisage. If so, do you think that this is a necessary part of the proposal or could Scotland make such a deal with the EU without taking out EU membership, and therefore without putting up damaging trading barriers with rUK, with whom over 60% of Scotland’s “non-domestic” trade takes place. Also, while you say that Scotland has the potential to provide a sizeable chunk of the EU’s energy needs, surely the EU would have other options and other sources available to it. If so, why would your plan be more attractive to the EU than other options? Would no other EU member state be able to provide Scotland with competition here...and how much would sourcing from an EU state really matter? I realise, particularly given the recent events in and resulting from Russia’s invasion of the Ukraine, that this would be a positive factor, but if we were not in the EU we would still presumably be considered a reliable and friendly partner (although, maybe you think that the EU would feel that dealing with a newly established and non-EU country would be too risky and therefore insist upon our membership of the EU, I guess). Hi happyjack My plan involves assuming a best case scenario and everything turning out hunky dory. So I'm on the fence rather than going for independence. I'd be more confident if there were others talking that way. On trade you'd have to do a risk benefit analysis for example. Would the deal from the EU make up for loss of some trade. |
|
|
|
Post by research0it on Jan 11, 2023 13:24:40 GMT
It is pipe dreams like this that encourage those without the power of thought to believe the SNP nonsense. All your power is owned by the Spanish anyway, just concentrate on teaching your children the alphabet and fill in your pot holes. Hi Om15 For me to respond to that, I'd have to understand that you know the difference between capital investment and revenue expenditure, how the former nearly always has a payback period and the latter not, as well as how, if a lender is participating in the outcomes of the capital project, they may choose to give the borrower favourable terms and effectively cut the payback period. As for the SNP and me getting the idea from them, if only that was true. |
|
|
|
Post by research0it on Jan 11, 2023 13:35:45 GMT
It is pipe dreams like this that encourage those without the power of thought to believe the SNP nonsense. All your power is owned by the Spanish anyway, just concentrate on teaching your children the alphabet and fill in your pot holes. Hi Om15 again On the insults theme, which we discussed on another thread, it's not a huge leap of imagination to take your post as an insult to the people of scotland. I didn't but thinner skinned people than me might. |
|
|
|
Post by om15 on Jan 11, 2023 13:40:05 GMT
Not at all, but I'm sure the SNP supporters will take it as such, it is their way.
|
|
|
|
Post by morayloon on Jan 11, 2023 14:09:56 GMT
Has nobody told you GERs is a load of drivel. Yes, you and the couple of Indy fanatics on this and/or on the old site have told me that many times, but that is what is drivel, not the GERS figures.
It is obviously a forlorn hope, but try to read and understand the following ie.
fraserofallander.org/gers-guide/
fraserofallander.org/gers-2022-the-main-headlines-and-what-does-it-really-tell-us/
In particular, given that you and the other GERS deniers all make the same points, you should note the content of the following extract from the 2nd link above ie.
“In summary though, to go through the main claims usually made about GERS:
GERS is an accredited National Statistics produced by statisticians in the Scottish Government (so is not produced by the UK Government) and is a serious attempt to understand the key fiscal facts under the current constitutional arrangement
Some people look to discredit the veracity of GERS because it relies – in part – on estimation. Estimation is a part of all economic statistics and is not a reason to dismiss the figures as “made up”.
Will the numbers change if you make different reasonable assumptions about the bits of GERS that are estimated? In short, not to any great extent.”
Oh, and you should also note this extract too ie.
“GERS does provide an accurate picture of where Scotland is in 2022. In doing so it sets the starting point for a discussion about the immediate choices, opportunities and challenges that need to be addressed by those advocating new fiscal arrangements. And here the challenge is stark, with a likely deficit far in excess of the UK as a whole, other comparable countries or that which is deemed to be sustainable in the long-term. It is not enough to say ‘everything will be fine’ or ‘look at this country, they can run a sensible fiscal balance so why can’t Scotland?’. Concrete proposals and ideas are needed.”
Stick to wee baby girl writing. Your capitals trying to make out it is big grown up writing, makes you look even more clueless. What capitals? The part of GERS that is anywhere near correct is that part dealing with Scot Gov finances. The rest, on reserved matters, is pure guesswork. The operative word in all the bollocks you came up with is "attempt". And your description - an estimate - despite how you try and gloss over it means there are serious drawbacks with GERS. |
|
|
|
Post by research0it on Jan 11, 2023 16:22:32 GMT
The part of GERS that is anywhere near correct is that part dealing with Scot Gov finances. The rest, on reserved matters, is pure guesswork. The operative word in all the bollocks you came up with is "attempt". And your description - an estimate - despite how you try and gloss over it means there are serious drawbacks with GERS. Hi morayloon Do you not think, for the sake of independence planning, it's safer to assume that GERs are correct. I have my doubts about some of the costs for reserved matters, but don't want nasty surprises post independence either. |
|
