(Original post by Nucky)
1) So..you cannot evidence in anyway your assertion that Scotland will face an arduous and/or lengthy time entering the EU. Thanks.
Given that wasn't the point I was making, it would be odd for me to evidence it. I was saying that I believed the conditions that an independent Scotland would have to accede to the EU under - reflecting the policy focus of the EU and the conditions that other member states face - would be unattractive.
You mention the EU opt outs that Britain has negotiated and that an independent Scotland would lose.
...Hmmm correct me if I am wrong but is Scotland not about to lose them anyway.
Well, yes, the UK is going to be outside of the EU - which really makes issues like the rebate and Euro membership moot points. I'm not entirely sure where you think you're going with this point, but it doesn't seem to me to make any sense at all.
Further...you mention having to join the Euro and the then lack of fiscal control.
a) New EU nations agree to an understanding that they will join the Euro
b) There is no set time period and you should be aware that several nations have joined and faced no demand to adopt the euro. Indeed Britains longest serving MEP, David Martin (labour) states:
"We (Scotland) would be entitled not to join or given a long transitional period so that we might never have to join it if we didn’t want to join it.”
c) Even if we did join the Euro, we certainly would have no lesser fiscal control than that which we currently have with the pound.
On points (a) and (b), I don't agree with David Martin's comments at all. They are complacent, and reflect the European Union as it has been, without the bulwark of a major economy that clearly stands at a distance from the Eurozone. You need only look at the President of the Commission's comments to see the change in tone from the European Commission as to the future of the single currency.
The idea that Scotland will have no less fiscal control is bunk. Our fiscal position is entirely different within the UK: we can merrily run notional deficits of over 9 percent, with high levels of public spending. As we have seen with Eurozone members, that would not be acceptable to the EU institutions and they are more than happy to enforce their position against members.
2) With regards to tax revenue...you again miss the point. Scotland with an affluent population, numerous high value exports, and a vast array of resource is shown as running a higher deficit than similar sized GDP's, who run equal or larger public sector spends but lack similar assets. The answer obviously is that the supposed deficit is nonsense.
So, in short, because a fact is unpalatable to you, it must be "nonsense"?
As I've said, GDP has very little relation to tax revenues, so your assumption here is simply wrong.
3) I am sorry you had your Saturday evening spoiled. You must have spent several hours frantically googling to come up with a semi coherent reply in relation to GERS. I state this as its clear that you have no deeper understanding of the underlying issues with the statistics upon which GERS are based. I get it. You dodn't want look daft
Actually I watched the evidence session with Richard Murphy live at the time. You're quite right that I did have to Google the precise quotes from the official report. It takes minutes. I also note that you don't actually have an answer to any of this.
Might I suggest that a bit of research on your side wouldn't go amiss.
Also...I have to say I find it hilarious that some internet no mark, chooses to be so derogatory
to someone who is a recognised authority in the field of statistical analysis and public finance.
Except for the obvious point that no serious Scottish economist, including nationalists, agrees with him. If you're going to make an appeal to authority - which, might I remind you, is how stupid people make arguments - then you might want to find a slightly better authority.
Your lack of depth of knowledge in the matter is further exposed in your misuse of the Margaret Cuthbertson quote. If you had looked beyond the headlines of the britnat rags from which you obviously draw opinion, you would see that she was defending the work of the civil servants who compiled the figures based on the statistics....NOT the statistics themselves.
Except that she did defend them. You can read it yourself. She said she strongly objected to the figures being presented as "crap" by Richard Murphy.
The reason.....accurate figures do not exist. This is a fact the GERS publication itself acknowledges. Therefore talk with certainty of any deficit and subsidy is all wind and pish.
Virtually all figures relating to public revenue contain some level of estimation. You, for example, have referred to Scottish GDP figures - these are very much estimates, yet of course you don't apply the same level of caution to their use. That is, of course, no reason not to use such figures, as they are the best data we have available and are quite reliable.
The statistics upon which GERS are compiled are supplied every year to the Scottish govt by the UK treasury. Therein lies the problem. The vast majority of Scotlands revenue is collected at UK govt level. The figures on revenue from Scottish taxation are an estimate based on population share. The statistics themselves are bogus.
Income earned from Scottish companies or companies operating in Scotland is unquantifiable. VAT figures earned through transactions in Scotland is unknown. An item produced in Scotland and sold by a firm with a head office outwith Scotland is recorded as a sale where?
It is slightly odd that you're taking the position that VAT is unquantifiable because we do not know where transactions take place, yet you ask me a question about where a transaction is "recorded" within the UK. What you've done there is confuse two separate conspiracy theories: one about locations of head offices (which is simply false) and one about VAT being of unquantifiable origin and based on a population share (it isn't, activity data is used by the Scottish Government statisticians in GERS for VAT - which, to answer your question - certainly does reflect consumption at point of sale).
If you're really making a case that Scotland's economic position is unknowable, and may just as well be worse than what official economic data sucggests, then I'd say that's about as good an argument against Scottish independence as I could come up with: that we'd be creating a new state entirely in the dark about our position. Unfortunately, it's also nonsense, fuelled by bloggers and other assorted oddballs who have a very loose understanding of Scotland's economy. [/quote]