BHEASTS Face New Chanting Probe

[calscot 0]

Just thought of another thing the no side might have got wrong - the Schengen agreement has a schoogly peg at the moment.

[craig 5,199]

Completely agree.

 

 

 

The no side are getting found out quite a bit. The EU thing is huge. Then there are the devolution promises which were not 100% genuine. Because the no side won, we can't know if a lot of the stuff they said were lies - and if the yes vote had won, there wouldn't be much accountability.

 

The thing about the "lying" is that a lot of it is not technically lying - it's more disinformation, spin and propaganda. The £15b deficit is a current example. £15b for Scotland means it can't fend for itself. £93b for UK is fine. The fact that if Scotland was the same as the UK it would be about £11b anyway is brushed under the carpet. Previous years when oil price was higher are totally ignored.

 

 

 

The lie is the sensationalist assertion that it's evidence Scotland would have gone bankrupt or otherwise in deep crisis.

 

 

 

I agree that we can't rely on oil. It's too late - I've already explained the Norwegian analogue.

 

However, there is more to independence than that - when you have control over your income and spending you can change that. As Norway have shown there is usually a surplus, a few bad years doesn't necessarily change that. With good, targeted investment Scotland could perform a lot better - instead of targeting London all the time.

 

I can't really predict whether it would be better or worse but I think the whole the UK suffers under the London-centric model.

 

However, hypothetically I do see the oil as a possible crutch to lean on while Scotland builds its strength back, hopefully not needing it after a while.

 

Not a lot I disagree with there Cal. I would say, however, I wouldn't like to see Scotland use oil as its crutch until such time as it "recovers". The powers that be should be looking to create or, more accurately, diversify its economy now so that, in the event of independence, the country wouldn't be so heavily reliant on oil prices. If you diversify now then if oil prices tank after independence the blow is softened.

 

I think that the 15 billion means Scotland can't fend for itself, as would the national average of 11 billion. Completely agree though that years where oil prices are higher then the issue is either non-existent or much lower. But running at large deficits should pose a problem regardless. I see what you are saying about the misinformation surrounding "15 bill means Scotland is in crisis" whilst "93 billion means UK is OK" mantra - but I suspect you would be hard pushed to find anyone that thinks a 93 billion deficit for the UK as a whole is ok - a 93 billion deficit with our GDP should be cause for concern. Are people saying that 93 billion deficit is fine ? Or is your point that more is being made about Scotland's deficit than the UK's ?

 

Sadly the "Norway" model has sailed for the most part. That said, if you catch independence and oil price boom at the same time then you could build up the "sinking fund" pretty significantly pretty quickly. But you wouldn't really want to be gambling on that perfect storm.

[calscot 0]

Not a lot I disagree with there Cal. I would say, however, I wouldn't like to see Scotland use oil as its crutch until such time as it "recovers". The powers that be should be looking to create or, more accurately, diversify its economy now so that, in the event of independence, the country wouldn't be so heavily reliant on oil prices. If you diversify now then if oil prices tank after independence the blow is softened.

 

Agree again, but not sure how much power the Scottish government has to do this. Maybe we're spending too much on education and old people, but that's something I like about the Scottish government.

 

I do think we have some opportunities that aren't being taken but then when we do stuff like wind power and other renewable energy schemes, you end up with a lot of opposition.

 

I think that the 15 billion means Scotland can't fend for itself, as would the national average of 11 billion.

 

I don't quite get that - logically if Scotland can't cope with UK levels of deficit, then I don't see how the UK can. The UK's also used to be larger - £156b in 2009, which is proportional to Scotland's now, but we've survived and supposed to be one of the stronger countries. I think Scotland would cope and get through it as the UK have.

 

Completely agree though that years where oil prices are higher then the issue is either non-existent or much lower. But running at large deficits should pose a problem regardless. I see what you are saying about the misinformation surrounding "15 bill means Scotland is in crisis" whilst "93 billion means UK is OK" mantra - but I suspect you would be hard pushed to find anyone that thinks a 93 billion deficit for the UK as a whole is ok - a 93 billion deficit with our GDP should be cause for concern. Are people saying that 93 billion deficit is fine ? Or is your point that more is being made about Scotland's deficit than the UK's ?

 

My point is that the UK deficit is large but people aren't saying we can't cope, but they are saying that for Scotland. Although it's bigger proportionally, it's currently a one off, but although it's 40% out of proportion, it's not yet orders of magnitude. It's like someone overspending by £1100 one year telling someone who overspent by £1500 is doomed.

 

But they just pull out the £15b in isolation which sounds infeasible with no context of what the UK and other countries have coped with. or the history of Scotland's and Uk's deficits.

 

Sadly the "Norway" model has sailed for the most part. That said, if you catch independence and oil price boom at the same time then you could build up the "sinking fund" pretty significantly pretty quickly. But you wouldn't really want to be gambling on that perfect storm.

 

I agree. But a lot of the no argument ignores the fact that Scotland has generously shared its wealth for decades, and coincidentally, when we want to leave that income is at a low and possibly less than half left, and so we're insulting told how we've no chance of coping on our own. To me it's a bit like, "We've sucked the life out of you and now look how helpless you are".

 

But in the end, there are countries our size, without oil, that do ok, and we're not exactly lacking in education, technology, infrastructure, innovation etc. I think that with some big adjustments I can't see how we wouldn't do just as well as some of them without the oil, but obviously much better with it.

 

I'm talking Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Austria and Belgium. What do they have that we don't? Even Slovenia aren't doing too bad after independence, despite the civil war and having none of our advantages or natural resources.

 

Taken on its own and including oil, Scotland reportedly has the 14th largest GDP per capita in the world (2014) - with the Uk at 18th. It's similar to Belgium and Finland. Austria, Ireland, Netherlands, Sweden and Denmark are between 5% and 10% ahead.

 

Norway are second after Luxembourg but massively higher - about 70% higher than us, almost twice the UK.

 

Our spend is also higher than the rest of the UK - purportedly paid for by our higher share of the oil revenue. So maybe we spend too much on things that don't bring us income.

[RANGERRAB 3,337]

An independent Scotland's first problem is what currency it would use. It wouldnt be sterling because rUK wouldnt allow an independent Scotland to have the B of E as its Central Bank.

Salmond lied thro his teeth when on TV debates during the referendum we'd be using Sterling as our currency

[Rousseau 9,581]

You're far too eloquent Cal. I agree the £15 billion is meaningless out of context, but I think the point is that it's an unsustainable % of GDP (just like it is for the UKs deficit). Whereas the UK have been trying to reduce it, the SNP haven't done much, and it's actually increased. (I think they'd rather spend as much as they can, blaming Westminster for any problems, and taking the credit for any successes; but that's just a groundless personal opinion.) Of course Oil has a lot to do with it, but we can't base an entire economy on one source of revenue. (And we can't argue 'what-ifs': the Norway model would have been great if we (UK) had the sense to do it.) NS admitted she'd do the same as the UK (austerity) when they (SNP) clearly like to spin the anti-austerity line. Perhaps 'proves' is too strong a word, but it surely suggests Scotland would be in difficulty in the event of a Yes vote? Spending would need to be cut, or taxes increased. Simple. I'm not suggesting we're a basket-case, but they (SNP) can't keep lying that we'd be better off. We wouldn't. (And you can move the goal-posts all you want, but I believe they did say we'd be around £500 better off immediately -- I'm not entirely sure on the number, but it was something like that.) I think it's a 'lie' in the sense that the figures don't really prove the alternative. I think it's idealistic bluster.

[RANGERRAB 3,337]

You're far too eloquent Cal. I agree the £15 billion is meaningless out of context, but I think the point is that it's an unsustainable % of GDP (just like it is for the UKs deficit). Whereas the UK have been trying to reduce it, the SNP haven't done much, and it's actually increased. (I think they'd rather spend as much as they can, blaming Westminster for any problems, and taking the credit for any successes; but that's just a groundless personal opinion.) Of course Oil has a lot to do with it, but we can't base an entire economy on one source of revenue. (And we can't argue 'what-ifs': the Norway model would have been great if we (UK) had the sense to do it.) NS admitted she'd do the same as the UK (austerity) when they (SNP) clearly like to spin the anti-austerity line. Perhaps 'proves' is too strong a word, but it surely suggests Scotland would be in difficulty in the event of a Yes vote? Spending would need to be cut, or taxes increased. Simple. I'm not suggesting we're a basket-case, but they (SNP) can't keep lying that we'd be better off. We wouldn't. (And you can move the goal-posts all you want, but I believe they did say we'd be around £500 better off immediately -- I'm not entirely sure on the number, but it was something like that.) I think it's a 'lie' in the sense that the figures don't really prove the alternative. I think it's idealistic bluster.

 

The £15bn is not 'meaningless' as you suggest.

Scotland's deficit percent of GDP is higher than that of Greece.

[Rousseau 9,581]

The £15bn is not 'meaningless' as you suggest.

Scotland's deficit percent of GDP is higher than that of Greece.

 

That would be giving it context. So yes, £15bn is not meaningless in that context. Even then, that's not the whole story because Greece has a much bigger debt. It's a bad figure, but it doesn't mean we are a basket-case. It does suggest that Scotland would need to cut spending or raise taxes to cover that unsustainable deficit -- something the SNP seem unwilling to accept.

[calscot 0]

An independent Scotland's first problem is what currency it would use. It wouldnt be sterling because rUK wouldnt allow an independent Scotland to have the B of E as its Central Bank.

Salmond lied thro his teeth when on TV debates during the referendum we'd be using Sterling as our currency

 

You are factually wrong here. Scotland could use any currency it fancies including Sterling, the Euro or the Dollar. No-one has to allow it, you just use it. Several countries use the dollar without needing permission.

 

The only problem is that the central bank of your currency will not take your needs or wants into account on the policies which affect its value.

 

We'd probably stop printing our own notes though.

[RANGERRAB 3,337]

You are factually wrong here. Scotland could use any currency it fancies including Sterling, the Euro or the Dollar. No-one has to allow it, you just use it. Several countries use the dollar without needing permission.

 

The only problem is that the central bank of your currency will not take your needs or wants into account on the policies which affect its value.

 

We'd probably stop printing our own notes though.

 

Of course you can use any currency you want but without that currency's Central Bank it is pointless. If an independent Scotland had used sterling it would not have had the BofE as its Central Bank( lender of last resort). It couldnt run at any deficit & wouldnt be able to borrow on international markets.

 

Zimbabwe uses the USD. Panama uses the USD. Do you want Scotland to be like these countries?

[compo 6,259]

anyone noticed that unemployment has risen by 16000 in the last quarter in Scotland and dropped in the rest of the UK .