Post by happyjack on Apr 15, 2023 2:17:25 GMT
Happyjack: No, not like our UK Government, actually. Whenever our UK Government decides to spend more on any matter in parts of the country where that matter is not devolved, the relevant devolved nations get a corresponding pro-rata uplift to their budgets. However, despite receiving these regular windfall amounts, SNP ScotGov still routinely complains that it is being denied the right to borrow even more money and therefore, obviously, run up more debt
Happyjack: Scotland may have very limited borrowing powers but that doesn't mean that Scotland has very little (or no) debt. Luckily, it is just notional debt because we are in the union and that debt is therefore just a notional amount of the UK's debt. However, the level of UK debt is massive (particularly after the Covid crisis) so our notional share of that debt is massive too; in proportionate terms obviously.
However, you either failed to read and understand what I said in my earlier post, or you have chosen to avoid addressing it. My point was that ScotGov would run up significantly higher debts if they could, to which you replied "just like your UK Government." I then pointed out that whenever UK government spends more than planned on relevant matters, ScotGov receives additional funds from UK Government to spend as it chooses. However, ScotGov still wants to spend more than it receives (and more than the UK Government) on devolved matters, so complains about not having the power to borrow more and to run up even more debt. So, as I said above, ScotGov's appetite for running up debt on devolved matters is not like the UK Government's as you claim, but much greater.
Happyjack: I note that you have not directly answered the questions that I put to you above ie.
1. Do you deny that the Barnett formula massively advantages Scotland as it gives ScotGov considerably more to spend per head on devolved matters than is spent in England or, on average, across the country, and
2. are you happy for Scotland to receive this benefit of UK membership or do you feel, as Vinny does, that this money should be used where it is most needed throughout the UK rather than being automatically given to Scotland (and the other devolved nations) irrespective of need?
1. Do you deny that the Barnett formula massively advantages Scotland as it gives ScotGov considerably more to spend per head on devolved matters than is spent in England or, on average, across the country, and
2. are you happy for Scotland to receive this benefit of UK membership or do you feel, as Vinny does, that this money should be used where it is most needed throughout the UK rather than being automatically given to Scotland (and the other devolved nations) irrespective of need?
Happyjack: You obviously have not read what I said in my earlier post or you would not have posted any of this. Here's an extract from what I said i.e.
"You are absolutely correct, due to its geographical characteristics and its low population density, Scotland undoubtedly requires markedly more funding to keep its public services and facilities up to the same standards than is required across the UK generally. While we remain part of the UK, these additional funds are provided by the UK Government and the costs spread across a population of circa 70 million. Just think how debilitating it would be if these funds had to be raised from just circa 5.4 million of us in an independent Scotland instead. We would all have to either live with much higher taxation to maintain these services or allow these services to drop to an unacceptably damaging level. Neither is remotely appealing in my view, and neither would be anything other than detrimental to the Scottish people. What would you prefer an Indy Scotland to do here ie. cripple us with taxes or introduce savage cuts to our services and facilities?"
So, yes, I can obviously grasp the fact that there is a bigger cost involved in servicing those areas (and therefore in servicing Scotland as a whole) because I have said exactly that in the extract above. However, what you don't seem to grasp is that these additional costs, which are met by the whole UK at present, would have to be met by the much smaller Scottish Treasury, and funded by a much smaller economy, in the event of us going Indy - with the resultant tough choice of crippling taxes or savage cuts to public services, as I mention above.
So, I will ask you again as you failed to answer me first time of asking i.e. what would you prefer an Indy Scotland to do here ie. cripple us with taxes or introduce savage cuts to our services and facilities?
HAPPYJACK: However, from you what you did say in your reply, I think that we can safely assume that you accept that Scotland is massively advantaged through the Barnett Formula and that you are happy for Scotland to receive this benefit of UK membership irrespective of whether others need it more than we do or not
HAPPYJACK: Actually, it should go a long way, if not all the way, and not just "some way" - and I am not assuming what I like but what you clearly accept but will never say out loud in fear of losing your Indy Fanatic stripes i.e. Scotland is massively advantaged through the Barnett Formula and you are happy for Scotland to receive this benefit of UK membership.
Also, far from returning to Scotland a fraction of what it raises, the UK government returns significantly more i.e.£23.7 billion in 2021/22 alone - which is approx 1/3rd more spend on Scotland than Scotland raises.
Why do you want to walk away from that massive boost to our standard of living and leave us so relatively impoverished instead?
HAPPYJACK: As for what you actually say above,
1. I understand that water is in public ownership up here but (1) Scottish householders pay their share through an add on to their council tax bills, and (2) Scottish businesses are billed and pay for their usage directly, so your point that Scotland receives more funds in part to pay for publicly owned water doesn't stack up
1. I understand that water is in public ownership up here but (1) Scottish householders pay their share through an add on to their council tax bills, and (2) Scottish businesses are billed and pay for their usage directly, so your point that Scotland receives more funds in part to pay for publicly owned water doesn't stack up
MORAYLOON: Yes we do. But it would be very interesting to know what the difference is in bill amounts between North & South of the Border. I believe in England the amount charged varies region to region whereas we are charged a set amount based on council tax band. In Moray, I am paying £154.98 for water and £179.88 for waste water. How much are our English forum members paying? I would guess it's a fair bit more.
Scot Gov funds Scottish Water with our own money that was taken from us and a derisory amount given back.
HAPPYJACK: You should ask them what they pay if it interests you.
I have no idea what your point is about Scottish Water and derisory amounts etc. but presumably, whatever it is, it is in the past and can’t be undone now or in the future?
HAPPYJACK:You obviously don't realise it (otherwise you would never have said it because you would never willingly acknowledge any benefit of being part of the UK) but you are actually making the case for Scotland's place in the UK here. You are absolutely correct, due to its geographical characteristics and its low population density, Scotland undoubtedly requires markedly more funding to keep its public services and facilities up to the same standards than is required across the UK generally. While we remain part of the UK, these additional funds are provided by the UK Government and the costs spread across a population of circa 70 million. Just think how debilitating it would be if these funds had to be raised from just circa 5.4 million of us in an independent Scotland instead. We would all have to either live with much higher taxation to maintain these services or allow these services to drop to an unacceptably damaging level. Neither is remotely appealing in my view, and neither would be anything other than detrimental to the Scottish people. What would you prefer an Indy Scotland to do here ie. cripple us with taxes or introduce savage cuts to our services and facilities?
MORAYLOON: Why would a population of 5.4 million be unable to run a financially sound country. Too wee and too poor in one wee paragraph, the Scotch cringe is very much alive. Have a look around you. There are numerous wealthy states that have similar or even smaller populations. How do they manage without good old England behind them? Many countries have shaken off the English shackles and lived to, successfully, tell the tale.
HAPPYJACK: Are a few lines of Salmondesque bluster really the best that you can come up with here? This was the emotional and vacuous nonsense he was forced to resort to any time that he was stuck for a proper answer. It worked for him when he had an admiring and gullible crowd at his back hooting him on - but the tv audience recognised waffle and deflection when they heard it - just as I do here.
HAPPYJACK: Your argument is based upon flawed logic. ScotGov balancing the books, in itself, has nothing to do with GERS calculations or the deficit; the “books” that it balances are part of ScotGov’s financial reporting, not part of the GERS report. That is not to say that the amount expended by ScotGov does not feature in GERS - but it only features in the Expenditure column ie. there is no corresponding entry on the Revenue side of the GERS calculation against which it balances. So ScotGov balancing its books on devolved matters income and expenditure does not mean that the GERS deficit results from reserved matters expenditure
MORAYLOON: So, I'm disappointed, but not surprised, to see that you are still denying reality. Scot Gov has to balance what it receives to what it spends. That is the legal situation.
HAPPYJACK: Actually, strictly speaking, ScotGov does not have to balance what it receives with what it spends, and that is not the legal situation. The legal situation is that it cannot overspend but it could decide to spend less than it receives and return the balance to UK Treasury instead. However, ScotGov chooses not to do that but to spend every penny it receives.
Putting the unlikely scenario of ScotGov ever choosing to underspend and return monies to UK Treasury then, of course, ScotGov has to balance what it receives because that is the legal situation. I don’t deny that above or anywhere else in this thread or on either this or the old forum either. in fact, my initial response to you on this thread kicked off with the following “Apart from Jaydee...I think that we all understand that ScotGov balances the books -and many of us realise that they only do so because they are obliged to...” The only reality denying here comes from you; something which you are well practiced in, sadly.
However, as I explained in my earlier post, ScotGov’s balancing of the books has nothing whatsoever to do with GERS reports. That should not be a difficult principle to grasp but it is clearly beyond you. Perhaps you should just admit that you don't understand GERS or financial issues well enough to discuss such matters - because that's obviously the problem here.
HAPPYJACK: However, what does impact upon the deficit is the value of the books themselves ie. the amount that ScotGov receives and therefore spends on devolved matters. This is a far greater amount than ScotGov would receive to spend on us if it were to be given a budget linked to the amount of revenue that Scotland raises. Fortunately for us, that is not the case. However, if that were ever to happen then ScotGov would have to operate on a much reduced budget, one considerably lower per head (rather than considerably higher as is the case at present) than the corresponding amount presently spent in England on such matters, with all of the pain and distress that that would bring
MORAYLOON: We receive about £30 billion less than we pay in. That money would be better spent by a Scot Gov that would not fritter away good money after bad on Trident and the general so called deterrent and that's just for starters. A Scottish Government would have a different set of priorities which would mean a different spending pattern
HAPPYJACK: No we don't. This is your basic lack of understanding shining through again. Year on year, for the last 10 years at least, we have received increasingly more through UK Government expenditure on reserved matters and through the block grant transfer to ScotGov for it to spend on devolved matters than we raise. How do we know this?Because GERS tells us so and almost nobody, apart from the Indy Fanatics who are simply too brainwashed by the Indy cause to accept anything that contradicts the Indy narrative, seriously questions the reliability of GERS, not even SNP ScotGov.
MORAYLOON: You get it wrong again. Scotland PAYS MORE IN to the exchequer than it receives back. Don't you realise that the difference is supposed to be Scotland's share of costs relating to reserved issues.
HAPPYJACK: No I don't...No it doesn't...and No it isn't. However, the fact that you believe any of that unfortunately demonstrates, once again, that you really haven't even got a rudimentary understanding of GERS. I have explained it to you as simply as I can many times (and there are many easy to follow explanations on line if you take the time to look) but I really do wonder if you have the basic skillset to read, process and understand financial and business matters. In fact, I don't wonder because, from what you have posted both here and throughout your earlier post, I can tell that you don't. I am no expert on these matters myself, but I have a decent enough grounding in these areas to recognise that you don't. On that basis, I have to recognise that I will never shake you from your position because your position is not based on knowledge or understanding but simply on saying whatever best defends the Indy cause, and that you therefore have no interest in improving your knowledge or understanding if that forces you to challenge the Indy narrative. When it comes to matters like GERS or, for that matter, the difference between ScotGov's financial reporting and GERS, or why one has nothing to do with the other, you are happier to be ill-informed than to have knowledge and understanding, because remaining wilfully ill-informed makes it easier for you to defend the Indy cause.
Scot Gov funds Scottish Water with our own money that was taken from us and a derisory amount given back.
HAPPYJACK: You should ask them what they pay if it interests you.
I have no idea what your point is about Scottish Water and derisory amounts etc. but presumably, whatever it is, it is in the past and can’t be undone now or in the future?
HAPPYJACK:You obviously don't realise it (otherwise you would never have said it because you would never willingly acknowledge any benefit of being part of the UK) but you are actually making the case for Scotland's place in the UK here. You are absolutely correct, due to its geographical characteristics and its low population density, Scotland undoubtedly requires markedly more funding to keep its public services and facilities up to the same standards than is required across the UK generally. While we remain part of the UK, these additional funds are provided by the UK Government and the costs spread across a population of circa 70 million. Just think how debilitating it would be if these funds had to be raised from just circa 5.4 million of us in an independent Scotland instead. We would all have to either live with much higher taxation to maintain these services or allow these services to drop to an unacceptably damaging level. Neither is remotely appealing in my view, and neither would be anything other than detrimental to the Scottish people. What would you prefer an Indy Scotland to do here ie. cripple us with taxes or introduce savage cuts to our services and facilities?
MORAYLOON: Why would a population of 5.4 million be unable to run a financially sound country. Too wee and too poor in one wee paragraph, the Scotch cringe is very much alive. Have a look around you. There are numerous wealthy states that have similar or even smaller populations. How do they manage without good old England behind them? Many countries have shaken off the English shackles and lived to, successfully, tell the tale.
HAPPYJACK: Are a few lines of Salmondesque bluster really the best that you can come up with here? This was the emotional and vacuous nonsense he was forced to resort to any time that he was stuck for a proper answer. It worked for him when he had an admiring and gullible crowd at his back hooting him on - but the tv audience recognised waffle and deflection when they heard it - just as I do here.
HAPPYJACK: Your argument is based upon flawed logic. ScotGov balancing the books, in itself, has nothing to do with GERS calculations or the deficit; the “books” that it balances are part of ScotGov’s financial reporting, not part of the GERS report. That is not to say that the amount expended by ScotGov does not feature in GERS - but it only features in the Expenditure column ie. there is no corresponding entry on the Revenue side of the GERS calculation against which it balances. So ScotGov balancing its books on devolved matters income and expenditure does not mean that the GERS deficit results from reserved matters expenditure
MORAYLOON: So, I'm disappointed, but not surprised, to see that you are still denying reality. Scot Gov has to balance what it receives to what it spends. That is the legal situation.
HAPPYJACK: Actually, strictly speaking, ScotGov does not have to balance what it receives with what it spends, and that is not the legal situation. The legal situation is that it cannot overspend but it could decide to spend less than it receives and return the balance to UK Treasury instead. However, ScotGov chooses not to do that but to spend every penny it receives.
Putting the unlikely scenario of ScotGov ever choosing to underspend and return monies to UK Treasury then, of course, ScotGov has to balance what it receives because that is the legal situation. I don’t deny that above or anywhere else in this thread or on either this or the old forum either. in fact, my initial response to you on this thread kicked off with the following “Apart from Jaydee...I think that we all understand that ScotGov balances the books -and many of us realise that they only do so because they are obliged to...” The only reality denying here comes from you; something which you are well practiced in, sadly.
However, as I explained in my earlier post, ScotGov’s balancing of the books has nothing whatsoever to do with GERS reports. That should not be a difficult principle to grasp but it is clearly beyond you. Perhaps you should just admit that you don't understand GERS or financial issues well enough to discuss such matters - because that's obviously the problem here.
HAPPYJACK: However, what does impact upon the deficit is the value of the books themselves ie. the amount that ScotGov receives and therefore spends on devolved matters. This is a far greater amount than ScotGov would receive to spend on us if it were to be given a budget linked to the amount of revenue that Scotland raises. Fortunately for us, that is not the case. However, if that were ever to happen then ScotGov would have to operate on a much reduced budget, one considerably lower per head (rather than considerably higher as is the case at present) than the corresponding amount presently spent in England on such matters, with all of the pain and distress that that would bring
MORAYLOON: We receive about £30 billion less than we pay in. That money would be better spent by a Scot Gov that would not fritter away good money after bad on Trident and the general so called deterrent and that's just for starters. A Scottish Government would have a different set of priorities which would mean a different spending pattern
HAPPYJACK: No we don't. This is your basic lack of understanding shining through again. Year on year, for the last 10 years at least, we have received increasingly more through UK Government expenditure on reserved matters and through the block grant transfer to ScotGov for it to spend on devolved matters than we raise. How do we know this?Because GERS tells us so and almost nobody, apart from the Indy Fanatics who are simply too brainwashed by the Indy cause to accept anything that contradicts the Indy narrative, seriously questions the reliability of GERS, not even SNP ScotGov.
MORAYLOON: You get it wrong again. Scotland PAYS MORE IN to the exchequer than it receives back. Don't you realise that the difference is supposed to be Scotland's share of costs relating to reserved issues.
HAPPYJACK: No I don't...No it doesn't...and No it isn't. However, the fact that you believe any of that unfortunately demonstrates, once again, that you really haven't even got a rudimentary understanding of GERS. I have explained it to you as simply as I can many times (and there are many easy to follow explanations on line if you take the time to look) but I really do wonder if you have the basic skillset to read, process and understand financial and business matters. In fact, I don't wonder because, from what you have posted both here and throughout your earlier post, I can tell that you don't. I am no expert on these matters myself, but I have a decent enough grounding in these areas to recognise that you don't. On that basis, I have to recognise that I will never shake you from your position because your position is not based on knowledge or understanding but simply on saying whatever best defends the Indy cause, and that you therefore have no interest in improving your knowledge or understanding if that forces you to challenge the Indy narrative. When it comes to matters like GERS or, for that matter, the difference between ScotGov's financial reporting and GERS, or why one has nothing to do with the other, you are happier to be ill-informed than to have knowledge and understanding, because remaining wilfully ill-informed makes it easier for you to defend the Indy cause.
