Scots Vote

Gamers can also use this forum to chat about any game related subject, news, rumours etc.

Moderator: maddog986

User avatar
TulliusDetritus
Posts: 5581
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2004 1:49 am
Location: The Zone™

RE: Scots Are they free

Post by TulliusDetritus »

ORIGINAL: Treale

ORIGINAL: wodin

If I was Scottish I would vote independence..but as someone in England I say please don't go otherwise we will be stuck with a tory government for ever!!!

I'm not familiar with British political parties. Are Tories liberal or conservative?

Scots tend to vote the left parties (if Labour can be called left). Scotland out => UK (without Scotland) lose a lot of "left" votes ergo the right *wins* [:D]
"Hitler is a horrible sexual degenerate, a dangerous fool" - Mussolini, circa 1934
User avatar
wodin
Posts: 10709
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2003 3:13 am
Location: England
Contact:

RE: Scots Are they free

Post by wodin »

Yep Tories are Conservatives.
User avatar
rodney727
Posts: 1457
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2011 4:53 pm
Location: Iowa

RE: Scots Are they free

Post by rodney727 »

I have a feeling that tomorrow we will be waking up with a new independent country. There is a reason the Romans couldn't defeat Scotland. I didn't realize this before but the Scots are not a Germanic tribe like the English, like it really matter now but it helps me to understand the basic need for independence. On the other hand after 300+ years you would think living on the same island you would mesh with each other. Talk about being stubborn lol![:D]
"I thank God that I was warring on the gridirons of the midwest and not the battlefields of Europe"
Nile Kinnick 1918-1943
User avatar
JudgeDredd
Posts: 8356
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2003 7:28 pm
Location: Scotland

RE: Scots Are they free

Post by JudgeDredd »

ORIGINAL: berto

ORIGINAL: JudgeDredd

Whatever happens - I'm done. It'll happen or it won't and I'll be very confused tomorrow.
But is it done?

So if there's a NO vote today, what's to stop the pro-YES forces from scheduling a vote next year, the year after that, ..., year after year until the tide ultimately turns their way or one year they just get lucky?

It's a one-way ratchet, right? And what's to stop separatists from keep trying that ratchet until it takes, and locks in place?

If so, isn't independence happening sooner or later? And if so, why not now, just to get it over and done with?
No - the votes are being counted overnight and barring any recounts or issues getting the votes in (from the islands for example), the result should be known by 7am Friday morning.

If there's a NO vote life will go on. I doubt "independence" will die off...but it will go away for a while at least...especially IF the government come good on the powers they have offered Scotland (which I personally thought was an insult to the rest of the UK).

There wouldn't be a vote year after year. If it's a no vote, I reckon it might be 10-30 years before there may be a drive for it again (the last try was in 1979). It costs too much and a referendum would have to be ratified I think by Westminster. I totally think Cameron and his band thought it would be a NO vote (that the time for independence wasn't right) and was willing to give the referendum, though I don't know if he had to anyway - as Salmond and the SNP were majority elected based on their promise of pushing for a referendum. In fact - the fact there has been mass panic by all 3 leaders shows that they most definitely were sitting on their haunches celebrating - and then realised it was a wee bit closer than they thought. Absolute shame on them. If Scotland is lost to the Union tomorrow - it falls squarely in the lap of Westminster imo. They have been lackadaisical at best and downright incompetent at worst.

However - if it is a NO vote, maybe next time Westminster will realise the totally mess they made this time around and let Devo-Max be on the paper - that would make Independence go away for another 20 or 30 years and I genuinely believe if Devo-Max was on the ballot Paper now, the Scots would have went for that. That would've given Scotland full fiscal control with monies being paid to Westminster and Scotland would still be a part of the Union. Currently Scotland hands all money to Westminster and Westminster sends money back up.
Alba gu' brath
User avatar
wodin
Posts: 10709
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2003 3:13 am
Location: England
Contact:

RE: Scots Are they free

Post by wodin »

Funny thing is the Scottish get a better deal per head than the English..and if it's a no vote it will get even better.
User avatar
Toby42
Posts: 1629
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 11:34 pm
Location: Central Florida

RE: Scots Are they free

Post by Toby42 »

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

ORIGINAL: Treale

ORIGINAL: wodin

If I was Scottish I would vote independence..but as someone in England I say please don't go otherwise we will be stuck with a tory government for ever!!!

I'm not familiar with British political parties. Are Tories liberal or conservative?

Scots tend to vote the left parties (if Labour can be called left). Scotland out => UK (without Scotland) lose a lot of "left" votes ergo the right *wins* [:D]

I would have thought that the Scots were a conservative bunch?
Tony
User avatar
loki100
Posts: 11699
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2012 12:38 pm
Location: Utlima Thule

RE: Scots Are they free

Post by loki100 »

ORIGINAL: JudgeDredd

Warspite1 - you've thrown a rock right throw my window!

I was pretty sure I was going to be elated if it was a yes vote...but after reading your very heartfelt post, I am actually going to have very mixed feelings tomorrow. [&:]

If YES win, I'll be elated but I will genuinely feel for people like yourself who will have a feeling of losing something [&o]
If NO win, I'll be gutted it's the second time Scotland will have chucked this opportunity away - but I'll be happy for you, my mother (who also feels British) and others all over the country. [&o]

Whatever happens - I'm done. It'll happen or it won't and I'll be very confused tomorrow.

I kind of hope you get what you want...but not...that's how confused I am. [:'(]

Anyway - peace to you all. I hope whatever happens we all get on after [&o]

wonderful post and well said ...

ORIGINAL: rogo727

There is a reason the Romans couldn't defeat Scotland. I didn't realize this before but the Scots are not a Germanic tribe like the English, like it really matter now but it helps me to understand the basic need for independence.

.... err Lowland Scots which is either a language in its own right, or a very strong dialect of English, and spoken (to a greater or lesser degree) across Lowland Scotland is actually grounded on medieval German (its actually what English would be if it hadn't absorbed so much French). Doric (Aberdeen) and the dialects of Orkney and Shetlands are actually close to Norwegian ...
ORIGINAL: wodin

Funny thing is the Scottish get a better deal per head than the English..and if it's a no vote it will get even better.

well we do pay for it fully in taxes collected from Scotland, we contribute about 9.6% of the UK's GNP and about 9.3% of expenditure can be identified as being spent in Scotland. Check out the various GERS (Govt expenditure and revenue: Scotland) reports.
ORIGINAL: Treale

I would have thought that the Scots were a conservative bunch?

In a way the reason for this referendum is that Scotland has ended up having more in common politically and socially with social democratic Scandinavia than with the parties that run the UK Govt.

Should add, esp in Scotland the concept of *liberal* in a party sense has 2 meanings. One group are more or less the normal right of centre economically, left of centre socially that are to be found across the UK. The other group have their roots in the presbytyrian non-comformism that is still quite powerful in places like the islands off the West Coast and some regions in the north. The two don't really have much in common but a series of mergers sort of ended up with them in the same party.

So among the strands of politics here is a socially very conservative, but on other ways quite radical tinge. Their motto is more or less 'I bow my knee to no man but god' ... when formulated in the seventeenth century that was the stuff of revolution (& enduring top of the line misogyny ... thank you John Knox for that part of Scotland's social legacy)
User avatar
PipFromSlitherine
Posts: 1468
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2010 7:11 pm

RE: Scots Are they free

Post by PipFromSlitherine »

ORIGINAL: loki100

ORIGINAL: JudgeDredd

Warspite1 - you've thrown a rock right throw my window!

I was pretty sure I was going to be elated if it was a yes vote...but after reading your very heartfelt post, I am actually going to have very mixed feelings tomorrow. [&:]

If YES win, I'll be elated but I will genuinely feel for people like yourself who will have a feeling of losing something [&o]
If NO win, I'll be gutted it's the second time Scotland will have chucked this opportunity away - but I'll be happy for you, my mother (who also feels British) and others all over the country. [&o]

Whatever happens - I'm done. It'll happen or it won't and I'll be very confused tomorrow.

I kind of hope you get what you want...but not...that's how confused I am. [:'(]

Anyway - peace to you all. I hope whatever happens we all get on after [&o]

wonderful post and well said ...

ORIGINAL: rogo727

There is a reason the Romans couldn't defeat Scotland. I didn't realize this before but the Scots are not a Germanic tribe like the English, like it really matter now but it helps me to understand the basic need for independence.

.... err Lowland Scots which is either a language in its own right, or a very strong dialect of English, and spoken (to a greater or lesser degree) across Lowland Scotland is actually grounded on medieval German (its actually what English would be if it hadn't absorbed so much French). Doric (Aberdeen) and the dialects of Orkney and Shetlands are actually close to Norwegian ...
ORIGINAL: wodin

Funny thing is the Scottish get a better deal per head than the English..and if it's a no vote it will get even better.

well we do pay for it fully in taxes collected from Scotland, we contribute about 9.6% of the UK's GNP and about 9.3% of expenditure can be identified as being spent in Scotland. Check out the various GERS (Govt expenditure and revenue: Scotland) reports.
ORIGINAL: Treale

I would have thought that the Scots were a conservative bunch?

In a way the reason for this referendum is that Scotland has ended up having more in common politically and socially with social democratic Scandinavia than with the parties that run the UK Govt.

Should add, esp in Scotland the concept of *liberal* in a party sense has 2 meanings. One group are more or less the normal right of centre economically, left of centre socially that are to be found across the UK. The other group have their roots in the presbytyrian non-comformism that is still quite powerful in places like the islands off the West Coast and some regions in the north. The two don't really have much in common but a series of mergers sort of ended up with them in the same party.

So among the strands of politics here is a socially very conservative, but on other ways quite radical tinge. Their motto is more or less 'I bow my knee to no man but god' ... when formulated in the seventeenth century that was the stuff of revolution (& enduring top of the line misogyny ... thank you John Knox for that part of Scotland's social legacy)
GERS is indeed pretty clear:
In 2012-13, total Scottish non-North Sea public sector revenue was estimated at £47.6 billion, (8.2% of total UK non-North Sea revenue). Including a per capita share of North Sea revenue, total Scottish public sector revenue was estimated at £48.1 billion (8.2% of UK total public sector revenue). When an illustrative geographical share of North Sea revenue is included, total Scottish public sector revenue was estimated at £53.1 billion (9.1% of UK total public sector revenue).

In 2012-13, total public sector expenditure for the benefit of Scotland by the UK Government, Scottish Government and all other parts of the public sector, plus a per capita share of UK debt interest payments, was £65.2 billion. This is equivalent to 9.3% of total UK public sector expenditure.

So that even with the (heavily pro-Yes) geographical share of the oil money, 9.1% of revenue, but took 9.3% of expenditure. Otherwise 8.2% revenue, 9.3% expenditure.
http://scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2014/03/7888

So not sure where your figures are from, perhaps you can cite them.

Cheers

Pip

follow me on Twitter here
User avatar
warspite1
Posts: 41896
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:06 pm
Location: England

RE: Scots Are they free

Post by warspite1 »

ORIGINAL: PipFromSlitherine

ORIGINAL: loki100

ORIGINAL: JudgeDredd

Warspite1 - you've thrown a rock right throw my window!

I was pretty sure I was going to be elated if it was a yes vote...but after reading your very heartfelt post, I am actually going to have very mixed feelings tomorrow. [&:]

If YES win, I'll be elated but I will genuinely feel for people like yourself who will have a feeling of losing something [&o]
If NO win, I'll be gutted it's the second time Scotland will have chucked this opportunity away - but I'll be happy for you, my mother (who also feels British) and others all over the country. [&o]

Whatever happens - I'm done. It'll happen or it won't and I'll be very confused tomorrow.

I kind of hope you get what you want...but not...that's how confused I am. [:'(]

Anyway - peace to you all. I hope whatever happens we all get on after [&o]

wonderful post and well said ...

ORIGINAL: rogo727

There is a reason the Romans couldn't defeat Scotland. I didn't realize this before but the Scots are not a Germanic tribe like the English, like it really matter now but it helps me to understand the basic need for independence.

.... err Lowland Scots which is either a language in its own right, or a very strong dialect of English, and spoken (to a greater or lesser degree) across Lowland Scotland is actually grounded on medieval German (its actually what English would be if it hadn't absorbed so much French). Doric (Aberdeen) and the dialects of Orkney and Shetlands are actually close to Norwegian ...
ORIGINAL: wodin

Funny thing is the Scottish get a better deal per head than the English..and if it's a no vote it will get even better.

well we do pay for it fully in taxes collected from Scotland, we contribute about 9.6% of the UK's GNP and about 9.3% of expenditure can be identified as being spent in Scotland. Check out the various GERS (Govt expenditure and revenue: Scotland) reports.
ORIGINAL: Treale

I would have thought that the Scots were a conservative bunch?

In a way the reason for this referendum is that Scotland has ended up having more in common politically and socially with social democratic Scandinavia than with the parties that run the UK Govt.

Should add, esp in Scotland the concept of *liberal* in a party sense has 2 meanings. One group are more or less the normal right of centre economically, left of centre socially that are to be found across the UK. The other group have their roots in the presbytyrian non-comformism that is still quite powerful in places like the islands off the West Coast and some regions in the north. The two don't really have much in common but a series of mergers sort of ended up with them in the same party.

So among the strands of politics here is a socially very conservative, but on other ways quite radical tinge. Their motto is more or less 'I bow my knee to no man but god' ... when formulated in the seventeenth century that was the stuff of revolution (& enduring top of the line misogyny ... thank you John Knox for that part of Scotland's social legacy)
GERS is indeed pretty clear:
In 2012-13, total Scottish non-North Sea public sector revenue was estimated at £47.6 billion, (8.2% of total UK non-North Sea revenue). Including a per capita share of North Sea revenue, total Scottish public sector revenue was estimated at £48.1 billion (8.2% of UK total public sector revenue). When an illustrative geographical share of North Sea revenue is included, total Scottish public sector revenue was estimated at £53.1 billion (9.1% of UK total public sector revenue).

In 2012-13, total public sector expenditure for the benefit of Scotland by the UK Government, Scottish Government and all other parts of the public sector, plus a per capita share of UK debt interest payments, was £65.2 billion. This is equivalent to 9.3% of total UK public sector expenditure.

So that even with the (heavily pro-Yes) geographical share of the oil money, 9.1% of revenue, but took 9.3% of expenditure. Otherwise 8.2% revenue, 9.3% expenditure.
http://scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2014/03/7888

So not sure where your figures are from, perhaps you can cite them.

Cheers

Pip

warspite1

It sounds like one of those measures you can calculate a million different ways. As I've said, I think we will only really know once the two separate countries announce their budgets and we see what becomes of the various promises made. Only one thing for certain, Salmond and Cameron can't both be right....
Now Maitland, now's your time!

Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
User avatar
warspite1
Posts: 41896
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:06 pm
Location: England

RE: Scots Are they free

Post by warspite1 »

Someone mentioned the Scots Greys earlier. Is there a finer war picture?

Scotland Forever [&o]

Image
Attachments
Scotland_Forever.jpg
Scotland_Forever.jpg (177.29 KiB) Viewed 83 times
Now Maitland, now's your time!

Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
User avatar
warspite1
Posts: 41896
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:06 pm
Location: England

RE: Scots Are they free

Post by warspite1 »

ORIGINAL: JudgeDredd

A little bit of light heartedness

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2BKrh43rhI
warspite1

Some good stuff here - I like the real reason that Salmond is a Scottish Nationalist [:D]
Now Maitland, now's your time!

Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
User avatar
loki100
Posts: 11699
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2012 12:38 pm
Location: Utlima Thule

RE: Scots Are they free

Post by loki100 »

ORIGINAL: PipFromSlitherine

GERS is indeed pretty clear:
In 2012-13, total Scottish non-North Sea public sector revenue was estimated at £47.6 billion, (8.2% of total UK non-North Sea revenue). Including a per capita share of North Sea revenue, total Scottish public sector revenue was estimated at £48.1 billion (8.2% of UK total public sector revenue). When an illustrative geographical share of North Sea revenue is included, total Scottish public sector revenue was estimated at £53.1 billion (9.1% of UK total public sector revenue).

In 2012-13, total public sector expenditure for the benefit of Scotland by the UK Government, Scottish Government and all other parts of the public sector, plus a per capita share of UK debt interest payments, was £65.2 billion. This is equivalent to 9.3% of total UK public sector expenditure.

So that even with the (heavily pro-Yes) geographical share of the oil money, 9.1% of revenue, but took 9.3% of expenditure. Otherwise 8.2% revenue, 9.3% expenditure.
http://scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2014/03/7888

So not sure where your figures are from, perhaps you can cite them.

Cheers

Pip


Hi

first GERS is not pro-yes, one reason I cite it (& use it other research) is its based on an agreed methodology agreed between the statisticians of the Scottish Govt and the UK Office for National Stats. Believe me, they are stats people to their finger tips, they don't do propaganda, they do rigorous work (with assumptions and estimates and all the rest of it).

Second, Oil on a geographic basis is the standard calculation, the alternative makes no sense, but is included to show the assumptions being made.

Third, the ratio shifts from year to year. The last GERS has relatively low tax from Oil as Osbourne messed up in an earlier budget which meant some fields were closed. My 9.6% is an average from 2008.

The basic point, is the expenditure bit (the 9.3%) is generally agreed (you need to make some assumptions such as per capita allocation of activities that happen geographically away from Scotland). The income side seems to vary from 9.1% to 9.8%.

Remember also they are also %s of different numbers, one is % of UK govt expenditure, the other is % of UK fiscal receipts.

Even if the 9.1% is the real income figure (for ever, not just a low point in a wider cycle), that still indicates a rough balance between spend in Scotland and revenues from Scotland. One element in the independence argument is of course we are paying for things we really do not want - such as Trident in that 9.3%. The expenditure also includes our share of servicing the UK national debt.

Roger
User avatar
warspite1
Posts: 41896
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:06 pm
Location: England

RE: Scots Are they free

Post by warspite1 »

Out of interest, I keep hearing that Scotland doesn't want this and doesn't want that. If we take Trident as an example, how do we know this? Has there been some kind of ballot north of the border? Just curious.
Now Maitland, now's your time!

Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
User avatar
JudgeDredd
Posts: 8356
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2003 7:28 pm
Location: Scotland

RE: Scots Are they free

Post by JudgeDredd »

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: JudgeDredd

A little bit of light heartedness

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2BKrh43rhI
warspite1

Some good stuff here - I like the real reason that Salmond is a Scottish Nationalist [:D]
"CLAUDIA ya cow! Ye goat wit ye waanted" [:D]
Alba gu' brath
User avatar
JudgeDredd
Posts: 8356
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2003 7:28 pm
Location: Scotland

RE: Scots Are they free

Post by JudgeDredd »

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Out of interest, I keep hearing that Scotland doesn't want this and doesn't want that. If we take Trident as an example, how do we know this? Has there been some kind of ballot north of the border? Just curious.
I don't know. I believe it's always been the SNP policy to get rid of them.

Thing is - SNP are only in power until 2016. If another party came to power in 2016 (and it's widely believed one is - most people believe the SNP will be a non entity when the referendum is done), I guess it could be reversed. Whether that would be popular with the Scottish, I have no idea.
Alba gu' brath
User avatar
warspite1
Posts: 41896
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:06 pm
Location: England

RE: Scots Are they free

Post by warspite1 »

ORIGINAL: JudgeDredd

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Out of interest, I keep hearing that Scotland doesn't want this and doesn't want that. If we take Trident as an example, how do we know this? Has there been some kind of ballot north of the border? Just curious.
I don't know. I believe it's always been the SNP policy to get rid of them.

Thing is - SNP are only in power until 2016. If another party came to power in 2016 (and it's widely believed one is - most people believe the SNP will be a non entity when the referendum is done), I guess it could be reversed. Whether that would be popular with the Scottish, I have no idea.
warspite1

Mmmmm thing is, if you want a separate Scotland and its really important to you, you vote SNP - there's not really an alternative (at least until it happens). But that means you vote for them regardless of what else they want until you get it.

That's democracy. The party I vote for, I certainly don't agree with everything, I just vote for the bunch who I think will screw me and my country the least.

It seems there just might be a lot of supposition about what people confidently state the Scots do or don't want.
Now Maitland, now's your time!

Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
User avatar
loki100
Posts: 11699
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2012 12:38 pm
Location: Utlima Thule

RE: Scots Are they free

Post by loki100 »

for lovers of trivia

.... the count for the Western Isles is going to be delayed by 4 hours as due to fog, they need to send the ballot boxes by boat from some of the small islands (places like Barra with 150 voters) instead (naturally conspiracy theories have already started). There are times when I really like this wierd, divided, quirky country.
User avatar
Orm
Posts: 27766
Joined: Sat May 03, 2008 7:53 pm
Location: Sweden

RE: Scots Are they free

Post by Orm »

There is a reason the Romans couldn't defeat Scotland.
In my opinion this is something of a myth.

In my humble opinion the Romans could have occupied it if they had wanted to. I deem it likely that they didn't consider it worth the cost of doing so. The Romans went into the area and then withdrew without being defeated by the Caledonians.

Maybe this isn't the right thread for me to post about this so if we should discuss this further a new thread might be better?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Scotland


Image
Attachments
Agricola_C..ns_80_84.jpg
Agricola_C..ns_80_84.jpg (539.66 KiB) Viewed 83 times
Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb -- they're often students, for heaven's sake. - Terry Pratchett
User avatar
JudgeDredd
Posts: 8356
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2003 7:28 pm
Location: Scotland

RE: Scots Are they free

Post by JudgeDredd »

I can't possibly disagree with that. I may even have been guilty of saying such a thing myself...though if I do use any term relating to a nation or group of people, I'm generally either just giving my general opinion on what I have been led or to believe OR I am taking the small opinion poll of my own friends/family/extended friend/family etc, etc.

I actually do not know specifically what the want of the Scottish population is regarding nukes...though I fully expect it to be divided in some fashion
Alba gu' brath
User avatar
PipFromSlitherine
Posts: 1468
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2010 7:11 pm

RE: Scots Are they free

Post by PipFromSlitherine »

ORIGINAL: loki100

ORIGINAL: PipFromSlitherine

GERS is indeed pretty clear:
In 2012-13, total Scottish non-North Sea public sector revenue was estimated at £47.6 billion, (8.2% of total UK non-North Sea revenue). Including a per capita share of North Sea revenue, total Scottish public sector revenue was estimated at £48.1 billion (8.2% of UK total public sector revenue). When an illustrative geographical share of North Sea revenue is included, total Scottish public sector revenue was estimated at £53.1 billion (9.1% of UK total public sector revenue).

In 2012-13, total public sector expenditure for the benefit of Scotland by the UK Government, Scottish Government and all other parts of the public sector, plus a per capita share of UK debt interest payments, was £65.2 billion. This is equivalent to 9.3% of total UK public sector expenditure.

So that even with the (heavily pro-Yes) geographical share of the oil money, 9.1% of revenue, but took 9.3% of expenditure. Otherwise 8.2% revenue, 9.3% expenditure.
http://scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2014/03/7888

So not sure where your figures are from, perhaps you can cite them.

Cheers

Pip


Hi

first GERS is not pro-yes, one reason I cite it (& use it other research) is its based on an agreed methodology agreed between the statisticians of the Scottish Govt and the UK Office for National Stats. Believe me, they are stats people to their finger tips, they don't do propaganda, they do rigorous work (with assumptions and estimates and all the rest of it).

Second, Oil on a geographic basis is the standard calculation, the alternative makes no sense, but is included to show the assumptions being made.

Third, the ratio shifts from year to year. The last GERS has relatively low tax from Oil as Osbourne messed up in an earlier budget which meant some fields were closed. My 9.6% is an average from 2008.

The basic point, is the expenditure bit (the 9.3%) is generally agreed (you need to make some assumptions such as per capita allocation of activities that happen geographically away from Scotland). The income side seems to vary from 9.1% to 9.8%.

Remember also they are also %s of different numbers, one is % of UK govt expenditure, the other is % of UK fiscal receipts.

Even if the 9.1% is the real income figure (for ever, not just a low point in a wider cycle), that still indicates a rough balance between spend in Scotland and revenues from Scotland. One element in the independence argument is of course we are paying for things we really do not want - such as Trident in that 9.3%. The expenditure also includes our share of servicing the UK national debt.

Roger
While I appreciate that I'm not going to change your mind, the statement that geographical basis for oil is the only one that makes sense doesn't really stand up. I'd also say you can accept their number or not accept their numbers, but you can't just pull 9.6% out of your hat and say you are backed by GERS.

The argument about Trident (or frankly, whatever) is the same one as made by extremists in the US ("I don't want my tax dollars going to X!") and is just as unreasonable. That's how democracy works.

And mentioning it includes a share of the UK national debt - when Scotland IS part of the UK - I'm not sure what point you are trying to make.

Anyway, the vote is done and we shall see.

Cheers

Pip
follow me on Twitter here
Post Reply

Return to “General Discussion”