|
|
Post by morayloon on Mar 18, 2024 16:17:22 GMT
Reality passed you by long ago. Your lack of understanding shines through yet again. The only part of GERS that is down to ScotGov relates to devolved matters, and they have to balance the books. A financial penalty would be imposed if they overspent. The rest of GERS relates to retained matters and those figures are down to the UK Government. Much of the statistics provided are guesswork. No details are available for the nations and English regions because, basically, they don't break the figures down to that level. Scotland provides most of the UKs energy requirements - wind, hydro and other renewables. Not forgetting oil & gas. Yet we pay the highest bills. Scotland has more water than any other UK country (indeed they say thee is more water in Loch Ness than is available in England). They will probably try to do a Welsh water robbery: remember the reaction to the drowning of the village of Capel Celyn in order to provide water for Liverpool? Hopefully, there will be a reaction in Scotland if yet another attempt to steal our resources is made. I really could go on. But, you can get the gist of what I am saying. England needs Scotland. If that was not the case why the hell did the UK Government fight tooth & nail to keep us imprisoned. However much the gullible believe in GERS, and try to perpetuate the myth that England subsidises Scotland, the fact is that that is not the case. Finally, even if there was a grain of truth surrounding Westminster's figures, the fact is that the exercise in no way reflects how an Independent Scotland would operate and succeed. In other words, it reflects how an imprisoned Scotland is, and always has been, treated since 1707! That is just embarrassing self-pitying bluster almost all of which, whether true or not, has nothing to do with GERS. All that GERS does is report on Scotland’s fiscal performance in a given year i.e. how much the Scottish economy raised in revenue in that period, how much public expenditure Scotland enjoyed over that same period and therefore, by deducting one from the other, how much Scotland relied upon England to prop it up. It has nothing to do with whether or not ScotGov’s remit is only in devolved matters, or whether or not ScotGov has to balance the books, or whether or not Scotland provides most of the UK’s energy requirements yet pays the highest energy bills, or whether or not Scotland has more water than the rest of the UK, or whether or not you could go on and provide more irrelevant, suspect and highly-selective bluster. England does not need Scotland and Scotland does not need England. Both would survive without the other. However, as GERS helps to demonstrate and for as long as the fiscal deficit remains the norm, Scotland would be worse off without England whereas England would be better off without Scotland. Your final paragraph is really the only one that contains anything remotely relevant, although even that is hard to spot as it is wrapped up in your usual self-pitying and self-deceiving nonsense. You are correct to say that GERS does not reflect how an independent Scotland would operate and succeed; it is not designed to do so therefore it would be strange to claim that it did. However, far from showing how an Independent Scotland might succeed, it throws the question of whether an independent Scotland could succeed (if success is measured in economic and fiscal terms and if success means doing discernibly better outside of the UK than within it) into serious doubt. What it does tell us is how big Scotland’s notional fiscal deficit is at present and therefore how big an actual fiscal gap the government of a newly independent Scotland would immediately have to close - and keep closed, year after year, on an ongoing basis. Given the scale of that gap that would either result in unbearably high tax hikes or brutally diminished public services - or, more likely, a mixture of the two. And that is only to cover the current fiscal gap, of course. There would also be the inevitable establishment costs and the detrimental knock on financial consequences of independence and of operating a high tax/low amenities economy to address as well, putting further pressure on our fiscal situation and leading to even more tax hikes or public service cuts, which would result in yet another wave of tax hikes and service cuts, and so on until the whole initial shock of the harm that we inflicted upon ourselves finally bottomed out. The inevitable implications of all of this would be decades of unbearable and unnecessary hardship, blighting the lives of several generations of Scots until the fall-out dust of independence finally settles - and for what? In all probability we would find ourselves no better off, and probably worse off, than we would have been if we had just stayed in the UK and avoided all of those bleak decades and lost generations in the first place. However, so long as it satisfies the cravings of the thinly veiled anti-English bigots amongst us then all of that would be a price worth paying, wouldn’t it? Trying to deflect from the truth is rather sad. What you call bluster' is patently the way things are. Only a Yoon sees otherwise. It has everything to do with Scot Gov's remit and that it has to balance the books. It is the essence of the "deficit". The "deficit" comes from Westminster spending on, or for, Scotland, and that entails a lot of guesswork. The energy situation is pertinent. All the energy goes south, at no charge to the exchequer, and is returned to Scotland through the National Grid at inflated prices. A lose lose situation. Your attempt to downplay Scotland's future omits the fact that most of England's energy needs are filled by Scotland. On Independence we will be charging for the export of oil & gas plus electricity from wind, hydro and other renewables. No more free ride for your lot. You will also be without the cash cow that is whisky. All of the proceeds from that industry will go to the Scottish exchequer. I could go on. Again you deflect and divert when faced with an uncomfortable truth. Telling it as it is is not "self pitying or self deceiving nonsense". You lack the ability to form a cogent argument and revert to your usual name calling. I mean what is Self pitying or self deceiving about anything I have posted? As for your side not suggesting, or even saying that GERS does not reflect how an Independent Scotland would operate or fare, the claim is made by Yoons all the time! But, as you don't live in this country, you wouldn't be aware of that. As GERS is a figment of the imagination of Westminster bureaucrats, it in NO WAY will have the clout you so clearly want it to have. Clearly, as Scot Gov has to balance the books regarding matters under its control, any deficit is down to the malice of London civil servants who feed the gullible misinformation. I don't think there is one anti English person on this forum. There are numerous anti-Scots, one of whom, is yourself! |
|
|
|
Post by happyjack on Mar 18, 2024 17:11:36 GMT
That is just embarrassing self-pitying bluster almost all of which, whether true or not, has nothing to do with GERS. All that GERS does is report on Scotland’s fiscal performance in a given year i.e. how much the Scottish economy raised in revenue in that period, how much public expenditure Scotland enjoyed over that same period and therefore, by deducting one from the other, how much Scotland relied upon England to prop it up. It has nothing to do with whether or not ScotGov’s remit is only in devolved matters, or whether or not ScotGov has to balance the books, or whether or not Scotland provides most of the UK’s energy requirements yet pays the highest energy bills, or whether or not Scotland has more water than the rest of the UK, or whether or not you could go on and provide more irrelevant, suspect and highly-selective bluster. England does not need Scotland and Scotland does not need England. Both would survive without the other. However, as GERS helps to demonstrate and for as long as the fiscal deficit remains the norm, Scotland would be worse off without England whereas England would be better off without Scotland. Your final paragraph is really the only one that contains anything remotely relevant, although even that is hard to spot as it is wrapped up in your usual self-pitying and self-deceiving nonsense. You are correct to say that GERS does not reflect how an independent Scotland would operate and succeed; it is not designed to do so therefore it would be strange to claim that it did. However, far from showing how an Independent Scotland might succeed, it throws the question of whether an independent Scotland could succeed (if success is measured in economic and fiscal terms and if success means doing discernibly better outside of the UK than within it) into serious doubt. What it does tell us is how big Scotland’s notional fiscal deficit is at present and therefore how big an actual fiscal gap the government of a newly independent Scotland would immediately have to close - and keep closed, year after year, on an ongoing basis. Given the scale of that gap that would either result in unbearably high tax hikes or brutally diminished public services - or, more likely, a mixture of the two. And that is only to cover the current fiscal gap, of course. There would also be the inevitable establishment costs and the detrimental knock on financial consequences of independence and of operating a high tax/low amenities economy to address as well, putting further pressure on our fiscal situation and leading to even more tax hikes or public service cuts, which would result in yet another wave of tax hikes and service cuts, and so on until the whole initial shock of the harm that we inflicted upon ourselves finally bottomed out. The inevitable implications of all of this would be decades of unbearable and unnecessary hardship, blighting the lives of several generations of Scots until the fall-out dust of independence finally settles - and for what? In all probability we would find ourselves no better off, and probably worse off, than we would have been if we had just stayed in the UK and avoided all of those bleak decades and lost generations in the first place. However, so long as it satisfies the cravings of the thinly veiled anti-English bigots amongst us then all of that would be a price worth paying, wouldn’t it? Trying to deflect from the truth is rather sad. What you call bluster' is patently the way things are. Only a Yoon sees otherwise. It has everything to do with Scot Gov's remit and that it has to balance the books. It is the essence of the "deficit". The "deficit" comes from Westminster spending on, or for, Scotland, and that entails a lot of guesswork. The energy situation is pertinent. All the energy goes south, at no charge to the exchequer, and is returned to Scotland through the National Grid at inflated prices. A lose lose situation. Your attempt to downplay Scotland's future omits the fact that most of England's energy needs are filled by Scotland. On Independence we will be charging for the export of oil & gas plus electricity from wind, hydro and other renewables. No more free ride for your lot. You will also be without the cash cow that is whisky. All of the proceeds from that industry will go to the Scottish exchequer. I could go on. Again you deflect and divert when faced with an uncomfortable truth. Telling it as it is is not "self pitying or self deceiving nonsense". You lack the ability to form a cogent argument and revert to your usual name calling. I mean what is Self pitying or self deceiving about anything I have posted? As for your side not suggesting, or even saying that GERS does not reflect how an Independent Scotland would operate or fare, the claim is made by Yoons all the time! But, as you don't live in this country, you wouldn't be aware of that. As GERS is a figment of the imagination of Westminster bureaucrats, it in NO WAY will have the clout you so clearly want it to have. Clearly, as Scot Gov has to balance the books regarding matters under its control, any deficit is down to the malice of London civil servants who feed the gullible misinformation. I don't think there is one anti English person on this forum. There are numerous anti-Scots, one of whom, is yourself! I agree that trying to deflect from the truth is rather sad so if you could stop doing that and focus upon the matter at hand I.e. GERS, rather than throwing in all of the usual deflection points, avoidance tactics and, quite frankly, pitifully poor understanding of the relevant facts and logic, then that would be appreciated. Rather than play along with your game and pick through all of the non-GERS smokescreen that you invariably fall back on, including this time around, I will attempt to get things back on subject matter by asking you once again the simple question that I asked above but which you have failed to answer i.e. you say that my lack of understanding of GERS shines through while I have explained that my understanding of GERS aligns with that of the SNP, and of the Scottish Greens, and of the Scottish Government. Can you therefore explain what it is about GERS that those bodies fail to understand ? BTW - you might inhabit a different planet that I do, but, as I have told you before, I have always lived in the same country as you i.e. the UK - and I have always lived in the Scottish part of the UK to boot. BTW 2 - All revenues from all of the things that you refer to above are included in GERS calculations, including energy and whisky, which just goes to demonstrate my point that you are pitifully ill-informed about GERS (and pretty much anything else of a financial or economic nature tbh). |
|
|
|
Post by morayloon on Mar 19, 2024 16:01:37 GMT
Trying to deflect from the truth is rather sad. What you call bluster' is patently the way things are. Only a Yoon sees otherwise. It has everything to do with Scot Gov's remit and that it has to balance the books. It is the essence of the "deficit". The "deficit" comes from Westminster spending on, or for, Scotland, and that entails a lot of guesswork. The energy situation is pertinent. All the energy goes south, at no charge to the exchequer, and is returned to Scotland through the National Grid at inflated prices. A lose lose situation. Your attempt to downplay Scotland's future omits the fact that most of England's energy needs are filled by Scotland. On Independence we will be charging for the export of oil & gas plus electricity from wind, hydro and other renewables. No more free ride for your lot. You will also be without the cash cow that is whisky. All of the proceeds from that industry will go to the Scottish exchequer. I could go on. Again you deflect and divert when faced with an uncomfortable truth. Telling it as it is is not "self pitying or self deceiving nonsense". You lack the ability to form a cogent argument and revert to your usual name calling. I mean what is Self pitying or self deceiving about anything I have posted? As for your side not suggesting, or even saying that GERS does not reflect how an Independent Scotland would operate or fare, the claim is made by Yoons all the time! But, as you don't live in this country, you wouldn't be aware of that. As GERS is a figment of the imagination of Westminster bureaucrats, it in NO WAY will have the clout you so clearly want it to have. Clearly, as Scot Gov has to balance the books regarding matters under its control, any deficit is down to the malice of London civil servants who feed the gullible misinformation. I don't think there is one anti English person on this forum. There are numerous anti-Scots, one of whom, is yourself! I agree that trying to deflect from the truth is rather sad so if you could stop doing that and focus upon the matter at hand I.e. GERS, rather than throwing in all of the usual deflection points, avoidance tactics and, quite frankly, pitifully poor understanding of the relevant facts and logic, then that would be appreciated. Rather than play along with your game and pick through all of the non-GERS smokescreen that you invariably fall back on, including this time around, I will attempt to get things back on subject matter by asking you once again the simple question that I asked above but which you have failed to answer i.e. you say that my lack of understanding of GERS shines through while I have explained that my understanding of GERS aligns with that of the SNP, and of the Scottish Greens, and of the Scottish Government. Can you therefore explain what it is about GERS that those bodies fail to understand ? BTW - you might inhabit a different planet that I do, but, as I have told you before, I have always lived in the same country as you i.e. the UK - and I have always lived in the Scottish part of the UK to boot. BTW 2 - All revenues from all of the things that you refer to above are included in GERS calculations, including energy and whisky, which just goes to demonstrate my point that you are pitifully ill-informed about GERS (and pretty much anything else of a financial or economic nature tbh). Don't do it then!!! Everything I have posted is about GERS: there are none so blind ... . You'll have to tell me what you think my non-GERS statements are. Scot Gov knows exactly the situation: reserved matters finances, in relation to Scotland, are mostly guesswork by the various departments. Why Scot Gov chooses to perpetuate the myth, which you have been taken in by, is anyone's guess. BTW I've always thought you're living on a different planet. As I have said before, and I don't believe that you live in the country of Scotland. BTW 2 - I have not denied that everything relating to Scotland is included in GERS (show me where I have?). However, excise duty is reserved and VAT is only partially controlled by Scot Gov. These are examples of the ongoing guesswork. |
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on Mar 19, 2024 16:08:05 GMT
They're proud anti-English racists. They kept safe houses in Scotland for IRA terrorists. I have no doubt Islamist terrorists also hold up there. They should be thrown out of the Union. For the many, not the few.
EDIT: Grass is green.
Scotland appears to be full of anti-English racists now. The IRA/SNP rely on them.
1. Nobody has said there is no Anglophobic sentiments in Scotland, but you claim the SNP are intrinsically anti-English. The Moray Council statement does not mention the SNP. Try again. Anti-English feeling in the Moray area is understandable given the large English presence in the county because of RAF Lossie and the army base at Kinloss. Large parts of rural Moray have been taken over by immigrants. They buy up housing at inflated prices that locals cannot match, and then they don't live there on a permanent basis. 2. The West coast and Glasgow areas where thousands of people claim Irish, Catholic, roots, is no different to American Republican sympathisers who also fund raised etc. for the IRA. 3. The IRA never attacked Scotland probably because they perceived all the woes meted out to the indigenous Irish population was basically down to the English. Bloody English people coming up here protecting everyone. How awful! Bloody English people paying taxes subsidising Scotland. How awful! All the things the English do for everyone. You poor little sausage. |
|
|
|
Post by happyjack on Mar 19, 2024 19:49:11 GMT
I agree that trying to deflect from the truth is rather sad so if you could stop doing that and focus upon the matter at hand I.e. GERS, rather than throwing in all of the usual deflection points, avoidance tactics and, quite frankly, pitifully poor understanding of the relevant facts and logic, then that would be appreciated. Rather than play along with your game and pick through all of the non-GERS smokescreen that you invariably fall back on, including this time around, I will attempt to get things back on subject matter by asking you once again the simple question that I asked above but which you have failed to answer i.e. you say that my lack of understanding of GERS shines through while I have explained that my understanding of GERS aligns with that of the SNP, and of the Scottish Greens, and of the Scottish Government. Can you therefore explain what it is about GERS that those bodies fail to understand ? BTW - you might inhabit a different planet that I do, but, as I have told you before, I have always lived in the same country as you i.e. the UK - and I have always lived in the Scottish part of the UK to boot. BTW 2 - All revenues from all of the things that you refer to above are included in GERS calculations, including energy and whisky, which just goes to demonstrate my point that you are pitifully ill-informed about GERS (and pretty much anything else of a financial or economic nature tbh). Don't do it then!!! Everything I have posted is about GERS: there are none so blind ... . You'll have to tell me what you think my non-GERS statements are. Scot Gov knows exactly the situation: reserved matters finances, in relation to Scotland, are mostly guesswork by the various departments. Why Scot Gov chooses to perpetuate the myth, which you have been taken in by, is anyone's guess. BTW I've always thought you're living on a different planet. As I have said before, and I don't believe that you live in the country of Scotland. BTW 2 - I have not denied that everything relating to Scotland is included in GERS (show me where I have?). However, excise duty is reserved and VAT is only partially controlled by Scot Gov. These are examples of the ongoing guesswork. You are correct to believe that I don’t live in the country of Scotland because I don’t. However, neither do you and nor does anyone else because Scotland is not a country. Rather it is a sub-national territory (to all intents and purposes a region) of the country commonly referred to as the United Kingdom. That said, why you would refuse to believe that I was not only born in but have lived all my life in Scotland can only be the result of your narrow, prejudiced and lumpen mind rendering you incapable of conceiving that someone who does not buy into the cringeworthy Scottish self-pitying perspective and the bigoted anti-England, anti-UK, and anti-Westminster grievance culture, and someone who does not think that everything that he or she does not like in his or her world is the fault of the people from a different part of our country, could be a Scot because that person is too different from you in this respect. As for the rest of what you say above, just as I said in my last response to you, I am not going to be sucked into treating your smokescreen of issue avoidance and diversionary tactics as anything other than that, but will instead attempt, once again, to keep the discussion focussed on the point at hand. So I will once again ask the simple question that you have still avoided answering I.e. you say that my lack of understanding of GERS shines through while I have explained that my understanding of GERS aligns with that of the SNP and that of the Scottish Greens and that of the Scottish Government. Can you therefore explain what it is about GERS that those bodies fail to understand? |
|
|
|
Post by jaydee on Mar 19, 2024 20:37:53 GMT
You are correct to believe that I don’t live in the country of Scotland because I don’t. However, neither do you and nor does anyone else because Scotland is not a country. Rather it is a sub- national territory (to all intents and purposes a region) of the country commonly referred to as the United Kingdom. That said, why you would refuse to believe that I was not only born in but have lived all my life in Scotland can only be the result of your narrow, prejudiced and lumpen mind rendering you incapable of conceiving of someone who does not buy into the cringeworthy Scottish self- pitying and anti-England, anti-UK, and anti-Westminster grievance culture as being a Scot. As for the rest of what you say above, just as I said in my last response to you, I am not going to be sucked into treating your smokescreen of issue avoidance and diversionary tactics as anything other than that, but will instead attempt, once again, to keep the discussion focussed on the point at hand. So I will once again ask the simple question that you have still avoided answering I.e. you say that my lack of understanding of GERS shines through while I have explained that my understanding of GERS aligns with that of the SNP and that of the Scottish Greens and that of the Scottish Government. Can you therefore explain what it is about GERS that those bodies fail to understand? Before you go ranting about GERs matey I nugget you understand how it works. You will be waffling next that bankrupt England pays its way in the United Kingdom. Using GERs Excluding London and the south-east, the rest of England has more than twice Scotland’s deficit while Wales and Northern Ireland are even worse, which just shows how much the City of London financial sector siphons off the profits generated in the rest of the UK. Or let me put it likes this. If GERs was used to calculate lets say the Dutch economy. This is how it would work To calculate the Dutch 'deficit' in the way we calculate Scotland's, the first thing you'd do is take about 20 per cent of Dutch public spending – and stop spending it in the Netherlands. Instead you'd send all that money to London so it could be spent there instead.And yes, that would immediately shrink the Dutch economy and its tax revenue at the expense of further boosting economic growth in London. Just as it does with Scotland. And that is what clowns fail to understand about GERs, www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2019/08/24/the-fraser-of-allender-is-failing-scotland-very-badly-when-it-comes-to-gers/www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2018/08/22/gers-really-is-crap/
GERS is not a set of accounts showing spending in Scotland. It does not tell us anything about the finances of an independent Scotland (it states that very clearly in the report itself). GERS is the state of Scotland’s finances as part of the UK, even with all of the Scottish massive economic advantages. Its called UNDER PRESENT CONSITIONAL ARRANGEMENT. Take the 8.4% shit out of this or the 8.4% crap out that. Watch England's bankrupt economy shrink by a minimum of around £100 billion. That is the minimum bankrupt England would have to borrow every year the second Scotland goes its merry way. And that just to stand still. If being part of the UK is an advantage why is Scotland poorer than similar-sized independent nations that would kill for our economic advantages and natural wealth? The answer is that GERS includes spending outside Scotland, spending on debt that was not generated by Scotland and spending that does not benefit the Scottish economy and would not be required in an independent Scotland. In other words, if GERS shows a deficit it is proof that being part of the UK is holding Scotland’s economy back and harming the wellbeing of our nation. In short a load of shite. That does not show the state of bankrupt England. Simply put Scotland can no longer afford debt ridden England. Care to correct it. And for your information. Since it took power the Scottish government has underspent every year. Not to mention. Every thing the UK government stated would happen if Scotland went its merry way. Has happened being part of the UK Would you care to tell me when bankrupt England underspent. www.gov.scot/publications/foi-19-02227/ Or let me put it another way. 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 out performs 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 leading taking Scotland out of the European Union. By the way. Can you tell me why this shit that is not going to happen called levelling up was required in the first place. And Scotland is a country. The King is the King of England, and head of state in Scotland. Feck knows were the new Queen fits in. Stop ranting clueless garbage. |
|
|
|
Post by happyjack on Mar 19, 2024 21:37:41 GMT
I am not and will not go ranting about GERS. It is others on here, who either don’t like what GERS tells us or who don’t understand what GERS is about and how GERS is calculated, who do all of the ranting about GERS..
I do understand how GERS works and England does pay its way - and it subsides the rest of the UK too.
I agree with the generality of your point about London and the South East, and I understand that not just the rest of England but the rest of our whole country suffers as a result of London and South East sucking all of the vitality away from everywhere else. That is why all of the anti-England sentiment and the Scottish independence sentiment that consumes and drags down Scottish politics and Scottish society is misguided. The real divide in our country that needs to be addressed is not Scotland v England but London & SE v rUK.
Your Dutch analogy makes little sense to me and, from the little that I can follow, demonstrates your lack of understanding of GERS and of Scotland’s fiscal situation.
GERS is not the state of Scotland’s finances as part of the UK. It is simply a statement of revenue generated by Scotland’s economy together with a statement of government expenditure on Scotland over that same period, the difference between the 2 amounts representing Scotland’s notional fiscal deficit or notional fiscal surplus (in recent years all deficit).
I agree that GERS is not a set of accounts showing spending in Scotland.
GERS tells us the initial fiscal situation that an independent Scotland would inherit and which an independent Scotland would have to confront. Based upon recent GERS reports that would mean than an independent Scotland would have to increase tax take by around 30% or reduce expenditure on public services by around 25%.
Scotland does not have massive economic advantages. Like most nations it has economic strengths and economic weaknesses, the latter of which seem to be dominant.
An independent Scotland would inherit its share of the current UK debt so if that is massive in UK terms then iScotland’s share would be massive in Scottish terms. An Indy Scotland would struggle to borrow more money, would only be able to so so at premium rates, and would not be able to service the debt if it could find a lender willing to provide a loan in the first instance.
The Scottish Government has not underspent every year. You just misunderstand the figures that you rely upon when you make that claim as I have explained to you before. Rather, it spends every penny it receives, a point which it confirms itself to be the case.
Scotland may or may not be an exporting powerhouse but so what? Whatever we are exporting, the fact remains that we can’t generate enough revenue to fund the level of public expenditure that we currently enjoy. We are only able to do this thanks to the generosity of the UK government.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2024 7:53:19 GMT
1. Nobody has said there is no Anglophobic sentiments in Scotland, but you claim the SNP are intrinsically anti-English. The Moray Council statement does not mention the SNP. Try again. Anti-English feeling in the Moray area is understandable given the large English presence in the county because of RAF Lossie and the army base at Kinloss. Large parts of rural Moray have been taken over by immigrants. They buy up housing at inflated prices that locals cannot match, and then they don't live there on a permanent basis. 2. The West coast and Glasgow areas where thousands of people claim Irish, Catholic, roots, is no different to American Republican sympathisers who also fund raised etc. for the IRA. 3. The IRA never attacked Scotland probably because they perceived all the woes meted out to the indigenous Irish population was basically down to the English. Bloody English people coming up here protecting everyone. How awful! Bloody English people paying taxes subsidising Scotland. How awful! All the things the English do for everyone. You poor little sausage. I think he's expecting me to believe some openly anti-English dishonest bigot over the facts. |
|
|
|
Post by jaydee on Mar 20, 2024 8:06:40 GMT
I am not and will not go ranting about GERS. It is others on here, who either don’t like what GERS tells us or who don’t understand what GERS is about and how GERS is calculated, who do all of the ranting about GERS.. I do understand how GERS works and England does pay its way - and it subsides the rest of the UK too. I agree with the generality of your point about London and the South East, and I understand that the rest of England ( and the rest of our country) suffers as a result of London and South East sucking all of the vitality away from everywhere else, not just across England but the rest of the country too. That is why all of the anti-England sentiment and Scottish independence sentiment that consumes and drags down Scottish politics and Scottish society is misguided. The real divide in our country that needs to be addressed is not Scotland v England but London&SE v rUK. Your Dutch analogy makes little sense to me and, from the little that I can follow, demonstrates your lack of understanding of GERS and of Scotland’s fiscal situation. GERS is not the state of Scotland’s finances as part of the UK. It is simply a statement of revenue generated by Scotland’s economy together with a statement of government expenditure on Scotland over that same period, the difference between the 2 amounts representing Scotland’s notional fiscal deficit or notional fiscal surplus (in recent years all deficit). I agree that GERS is not a set of accounts showing spending in Scotland. GERS tells us the initial fiscal situation that an independent Scotland would inherit and which an independent Scotland would have to confront. Based upon recent GERS reports that would mean than an independent Scotland would have to increase tax take by around 30% or reduce expenditure on public services by around 25%. Scotland does not have massive economic advantages. Like most nations it has economic strengths and economic weaknesses, the latter of which seem to be dominant. An independent Scotland would inherit its share of the current UK debt so if that is massive in UK terms then iScotland’s share would be massive in Scottish terms. An Indy Scotland would struggle to borrow more money, would only be able to so so at premium rates, and would not be able to service the debt if it could find a lender willing to provide a loan in the first instance. Scotland may or may not be an exporting powerhouse but so what? Whatever we are exporting, the fact remains that we can’t generate enough revenue to fund the level of public expenditure that we currently enjoy. We are only able to do this thanks to the generosity of the UK government. You are ranting on about GERs and clearly do not have a clue how it works. You made that more than evident. And bankrupt England does not pay its way in the Uk. Its debt is 97% to GDP. That means matey for every £100 it spends it has to borrow £97. So stop ranting clueless garbage. And you are not agreeing GERs is not a set of accounts showing spending in Scotland. you are ranting utter shite to the contrary. The only figure you need to fit in your skull along with stupid Englishmen who rant the bollocks that you do. Is that under the Barnett consequentials Scotland receives a block grant.. it does not get a block grant, of its own money, on a calculation of the public spending required in bankrupt England. If that public expenditure exceeds what is required in bankrupt England. Say on the NHS. Then Scotland gets a further share of its own money under the Barnett consequential. It does not work the other way around.
I do not have the exact figures to hand. Or be arsed to look them up for you to dismiss with waffle and wave of a hand. . But it is near enough to suggest that UNDER PRESENT CONSTITIONAL ARRANGEMENTS Scotland contributed some £90 billion to the UK treasury. Try trebling that in reality. From that it received back some £41 billion of its own money. And from that it underspent. In terms of the Uk. Scotland cannot borrow. So it cannot create something it cannot do. In short the pish know as GERs showsd Scotland has a zero deficit. That debt is 100% Englsih and Scotland has no obligation to pay any of it. I am not suggesting Scotland may or may not be a power house. I am telling you it is. Now if you have figures to the contrary of what i gave on my last post. Put money where gob is. In terms of the Englsih debt. It is £2.9 trillion. Covid not included. Yes that really is £2,975,504,900,900 and rising at nearly £600 per second. Or put it another way that is nearly £48,000 per UK citizen. Thats me. Or to put it another way that is nearly £90,000 per UK tax payer. Thats me. And that from which the Scottish payers pays a £8.4% share of English debt, on that debt the Scots did not need or ask for. Or recieved one penny. And all this crap Scotland get bigger share than England. Is just that. Utter crap. So here is what I am asking you. If you disagree then correct what I have just posted. Go on be a devil and be a first. Then point out to me one benefit, one benefit will suffice. How economically Scotland would be better of being part of the UK. The clue. Scotland can no longer afford bankrupt England and being screwed. |
|
|
|
Post by happyjack on Mar 20, 2024 8:16:29 GMT
I am not and will not go ranting about GERS. It is others on here, who either don’t like what GERS tells us or who don’t understand what GERS is about and how GERS is calculated, who do all of the ranting about GERS.. I do understand how GERS works and England does pay its way - and it subsides the rest of the UK too. I agree with the generality of your point about London and the South East, and I understand that the rest of England ( and the rest of our country) suffers as a result of London and South East sucking all of the vitality away from everywhere else, not just across England but the rest of the country too. That is why all of the anti-England sentiment and Scottish independence sentiment that consumes and drags down Scottish politics and Scottish society is misguided. The real divide in our country that needs to be addressed is not Scotland v England but London&SE v rUK. Your Dutch analogy makes little sense to me and, from the little that I can follow, demonstrates your lack of understanding of GERS and of Scotland’s fiscal situation. GERS is not the state of Scotland’s finances as part of the UK. It is simply a statement of revenue generated by Scotland’s economy together with a statement of government expenditure on Scotland over that same period, the difference between the 2 amounts representing Scotland’s notional fiscal deficit or notional fiscal surplus (in recent years all deficit). I agree that GERS is not a set of accounts showing spending in Scotland. GERS tells us the initial fiscal situation that an independent Scotland would inherit and which an independent Scotland would have to confront. Based upon recent GERS reports that would mean than an independent Scotland would have to increase tax take by around 30% or reduce expenditure on public services by around 25%. Scotland does not have massive economic advantages. Like most nations it has economic strengths and economic weaknesses, the latter of which seem to be dominant. An independent Scotland would inherit its share of the current UK debt so if that is massive in UK terms then iScotland’s share would be massive in Scottish terms. An Indy Scotland would struggle to borrow more money, would only be able to so so at premium rates, and would not be able to service the debt if it could find a lender willing to provide a loan in the first instance. Scotland may or may not be an exporting powerhouse but so what? Whatever we are exporting, the fact remains that we can’t generate enough revenue to fund the level of public expenditure that we currently enjoy. We are only able to do this thanks to the generosity of the UK government. You are ranting on about GERs and clearly do not have a clue how it works. You made that more than evident. And bankrupt England does not pay its way in the Uk. Its debt is 97% to GDP. That means matey for every £100 it spends it has to borrow £97. So stop ranting clueless garbage. And you are not agreeing GERs is not a set of accounts showing spending in Scotland. you are ranting utter shite to the contrary. The only figure you need to fit in your skull along with stupid Englishmen who rant the bollocks that you do. Is that under the Barnett consequentials Scotland receives a block grant.. it does not get a block grant, of its own money, on a calculation of the public spending required in bankrupt England. If that public expenditure exceeds what is required in bankrupt England. Say on the NHS. Then Scotland gets a further share of its own money under the Barnett consequential. It does not work the other way around.
I do not have the exact figures to hand. Or be arsed to look them up for you to dismiss with waffle and wave of a hand. . But it is near enough to suggest that UNDER PRESENT CONSTITIONAL ARRANGEMENTS Scotland contributed some £90 billion to the UK treasury. Try trebling that in reality. From that it received back some £41 billion of its own money. And from that it underspent. In terms of the Uk. Scotland cannot borrow. So it cannot create something it cannot do. In short the pish know as GERs showsd Scotland has a zero deficit. That debt is 100% Englsih and Scotland has no obligation to pay any of it. I am not suggesting Scotland may or may not be a power house. I am telling you it is. Now if you have figures to the contrary of what i gave on my last post. Put money where gob is. In terms of the Englsih debt. It is £2.9 trillion. Covid not included. Yes that really is £2,975,504,900,900 and rising at nearly £600 per second. Or put it another way that is nearly £48,000 per UK citizen. Thats me. Or to put it another way that is nearly £90,000 per UK tax payer. Thats me. And that from which the Scottish payers pays a £8.4% share of English debt, on that debt the Scots did not need or ask for. Or recieved one penny. And all this crap Scotland get bigger share than England. Is just that. Utter crap. So here is what I am asking you. If you disagree then correct what I have just posted. Go on be a devil and be a first. Then point out to me one benefit, one benefit will suffice. How economically Scotland would be better of being part of the UK. The clue. Scotland can no longer afford bankrupt England and being screwed. I do have a clue about GERs and I do understand how it works. That is why all that I have said above is correct. You obviously don’t have a clue about GERS and you don’t understand how it works. You also clearly don’t have a clue about anything else that you have talked about. That is why you have posted the nonsense that you have above. it is clear to me that you are also incapable of ever understanding anything that you talk about above so I will just leave you to wallow in your confusion and your unjustified resentment. |
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on Mar 20, 2024 8:22:10 GMT
He hates English people and wants an ethnically cleansed Scotland run by a bunch of nationalist nutters, what do you expect?
|
|
|
|
Post by happyjack on Mar 20, 2024 8:38:54 GMT
I expect him to spend the rest of his life spouting the same nonsense wondering why no-one will listen and why everyone tries to avoid him.
That said, I really don’t like just brushing him off with the type of reply that I gave him above, no matter that what I said is true, but what’s the alternative? Even if I could unravel a strand of coherent and cohesive thought from the deluge of ill-informed gobbledegook that he insists on posting, it would take far too much time and energy to do that and to correct all of the errors in the building blocks of his thinking and understanding whilst doing so, particularly given that he is obviously incapable of engaging in a manner that would justify putting in even a fraction of that effort, so what would be the point?
|
|
|
|
Post by morayloon on Mar 20, 2024 21:49:48 GMT
Don't do it then!!! Everything I have posted is about GERS: there are none so blind ... . You'll have to tell me what you think my non-GERS statements are. Scot Gov knows exactly the situation: reserved matters finances, in relation to Scotland, are mostly guesswork by the various departments. Why Scot Gov chooses to perpetuate the myth, which you have been taken in by, is anyone's guess. BTW I've always thought you're living on a different planet. As I have said before, and I don't believe that you live in the country of Scotland. BTW 2 - I have not denied that everything relating to Scotland is included in GERS (show me where I have?). However, excise duty is reserved and VAT is only partially controlled by Scot Gov. These are examples of the ongoing guesswork. You are correct to believe that I don’t live in the country of Scotland because I don’t. However, neither do you and nor does anyone else because Scotland is not a country. Rather it is a sub-national territory (to all intents and purposes a region) of the country commonly referred to as the United Kingdom. That said, why you would refuse to believe that I was not only born in but have lived all my life in Scotland can only be the result of your narrow, prejudiced and lumpen mind rendering you incapable of conceiving that someone who does not buy into the cringeworthy Scottish self-pitying perspective and the bigoted anti-England, anti-UK, and anti-Westminster grievance culture, and someone who does not think that everything that he or she does not like in his or her world is the fault of the people from a different part of our country, could be a Scot because that person is too different from you in this respect. As for the rest of what you say above, just as I said in my last response to you, I am not going to be sucked into treating your smokescreen of issue avoidance and diversionary tactics as anything other than that, but will instead attempt, once again, to keep the discussion focussed on the point at hand. So I will once again ask the simple question that you have still avoided answering I.e. you say that my lack of understanding of GERS shines through while I have explained that my understanding of GERS aligns with that of the SNP and that of the Scottish Greens and that of the Scottish Government. Can you therefore explain what it is about GERS that those bodies fail to understand? First Paragraph: Talking absolute bollocks. The only thing I can say in reply is, provide evidence to back your ridiculously ridiculous comments. Where, for instance, have I blamed the English for anything? Other than their stupid decision on Brexit which dragged my country out of the EU I have made no such comments. And even then there were millions of English people who voted remain, so I was not having ago at the English as a whole. Nationalists are not anti-England but are against the imposition of foreign rule. The point at hand is GERS. You seem to have difficulty understanding that. Maybe try again? |
|
|
|
Post by morayloon on Mar 20, 2024 21:54:19 GMT
Bloody English people coming up here protecting everyone. How awful! Bloody English people paying taxes subsidising Scotland. How awful! All the things the English do for everyone. You poor little sausage. I think he's expecting me to believe some openly anti-English dishonest bigot over the facts. You still have to provide any "FACTS". Waiting patiently |
|
|
|
Post by happyjack on Mar 21, 2024 4:25:51 GMT
You are correct to believe that I don’t live in the country of Scotland because I don’t. However, neither do you and nor does anyone else because Scotland is not a country. Rather it is a sub-national territory (to all intents and purposes a region) of the country commonly referred to as the United Kingdom. That said, why you would refuse to believe that I was not only born in but have lived all my life in Scotland can only be the result of your narrow, prejudiced and lumpen mind rendering you incapable of conceiving that someone who does not buy into the cringeworthy Scottish self-pitying perspective and the bigoted anti-England, anti-UK, and anti-Westminster grievance culture, and someone who does not think that everything that he or she does not like in his or her world is the fault of the people from a different part of our country, could be a Scot because that person is too different from you in this respect. As for the rest of what you say above, just as I said in my last response to you, I am not going to be sucked into treating your smokescreen of issue avoidance and diversionary tactics as anything other than that, but will instead attempt, once again, to keep the discussion focussed on the point at hand. So I will once again ask the simple question that you have still avoided answering I.e. you say that my lack of understanding of GERS shines through while I have explained that my understanding of GERS aligns with that of the SNP and that of the Scottish Greens and that of the Scottish Government. Can you therefore explain what it is about GERS that those bodies fail to understand? First Paragraph: Talking absolute bollocks. The only thing I can say in reply is, provide evidence to back your ridiculously ridiculous comments. Where, for instance, have I blamed the English for anything? Other than their stupid decision on Brexit which dragged my country out of the EU I have made no such comments. And even then there were millions of English people who voted remain, so I was not having ago at the English as a whole. Nationalists are not anti-England but are against the imposition of foreign rule. The point at hand is GERS. You seem to have difficulty understanding that. Maybe try again? My first paragraph was anything but bollocks, far from it indeed i.e.- Scotland is not a country but a sub-national territory of the UK- all that you know about me is what I have posted on here and from that, and that alone, and despite me telling you on several occasions that I am a Scot, you not only refuse to believe that but actually accuse me of being anti-Scottish. You can only have concluded that because you are incapable of conceiving that someone with views like mine, views that are markedly in contrast with your own corrosive and anti-English views, can be a Scot. As I say, I am a Scot who has lived in Scotland all of my life, has observed anti-Englishness throughout my life, and recognises it when I see it. Unlike in the past, most anti-English bigots nowadays have disciplined themselves to use euphemisms such as Westminster when, under the veneer, they mean England and/or the English. Therefore, while the underlying anti-English sentiment that underpins the attitudes of the Nationalist zealots amongst us is still there in spades, the offensive language has generally been reined in a bit in an attempt to hide their anti-English sentiments that decent people find offensive.You demonstrate your anti-Englishness, for example, every time
- you say things such as “we get the government that England wants/votes for” or that “Scotland gets a Tory government forced on them by the English” (we don’t)
- you claim that England needs Scotland (it doesn’t) and go on to claim that that is why the UK government fights tooth and nail to keep us imprisoned (it doesn’t otherwise we would not have had an indyref in 2014 and because we are not imprisoned)
- you describe the UK government as the English government and such like
- you describe Scotland as a vassal state and/or a colony (it is neither)
- you claim Scotland has been imprisoned and treated badly since 1707 (it hasn’t)
- you blame the English for Brexit (which is arguably the most blatant display amongst these examples of your anti-Englishness because you actually acknowledge above that it was only some people in England who voted for Brexit along with some from Scotland, NI, Wales and Gibraltar, yet knowing this you have, by your own admission, still blamed Brexit on “the English”.
In all of the above you (and others who talk in such terms) peddle blatant lies and/or distort the truth in a manner that reflects negatively upon England or the English, in so doing blaming (either expressly or by clear implication) England or the English for things that you do not like in your world. That, at the very least, is shameful anti-English behaviour.
BTW - you have felt quite free to accuse me, a Scot, of being anti-Scottish while resenting it when I call out your underlying anti-Englishness. For you to feel entitled to make such accusations about me while accusing me of being “ridiculously ridiculous” to call out you, a Nationalist zealot who engages in all that I describe here, for being anti-English, not only demonstrates a complete lack of self-awareness but is rank hypocrisy.
By your very explanation above of what a Nationalist is, you demonstrate your anti-Englishness because you clearly consider English people to be foreigners (they are not) and you believe that rule over us by ‘ English foreigners’ is imposed upon us (it isn’t).
You also fail to recognise anti-Englishness in others who are clearly anti-English, even when it is apparent to those around you, so it is not a surprise that you do not recognise the anti-Englishness in yourself. A little further up this thread, at the same point where you were accusing me of being anti-Scottish, you also said that you didn’t think that there was one anti-English person on this forum, including, obviously, one who is so blatantly anti-English as to say things such as “what is it about Englishmen that they just spew smear”. That you don’t recognise that individual as being shockingly anti-English can only be because your own sentiments are too close to his on this matter for you to recognise him for what he is.
You embarrass yourself by saying that I seem to have some difficulty understanding that the point at hand is GERS. Just count the number of times that I have tried to get you away from your diversionary smokescreens and back onto GERS by asking you the following question i.e. you say that my lack of understanding of GERS shines through while I have explained that my understanding of GERS aligns with that of the SNP, and of the Scottish Greens, and of the Scottish Government. Can you therefore explain what it is about GERS that those bodies fail to understand? You have repeatedly avoided answering this question so here’s another chance to do so. |
|
