Should Scotland become independent?? Watch

That'sGreat
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#61
Report 1 month ago
#61
(Original post by Xodrama.)
This is not an argument. And it is very naive to think that Scotland has a 0% chance of joining the EU on it's own.
My argument was already made and finished when I saw how bad at communication you were. This comment was identifying how you haven't made a useful point or argument
0
reply
TensorTympani
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#62
Report 1 month ago
#62
(Original post by ScullywagonThree)
In the question
If Scotland became independent all the worse for them, and the UK will soon split after that. And really the UK can not live seperatley, becuase it is already a small country and if it becomes smaller no one can live. Also if Scotland became independent then they would obliviously have the SNP as their PM, and the SNP will not co-operate at all with the other countries in the UK. When Scotland becomes independent they can not use the pound meaning when they make their own currency the value of it will be too high or too low depending on the circumstanes.
0
reply
Nucky
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#63
Report 1 month ago
#63
Honestly the lack of comprehension displayed by the britnats on this thread :eek3:.

Same auld tired bull being repeated robotically. Duff that has previously been disproved numerous times... you spew out in a repititious manner....almost robotically. Its like you have been brainwashed by your gutter press into believing your own exceptionalism.

Dullards!

No wonder the rest of the world is laughing at ye.
0
reply
paul514
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#64
Report 1 month ago
#64
(Original post by Nucky)
Honestly the lack of comprehension displayed by the britnats on this thread :eek3:.

Same auld tired bull being repeated robotically. Duff that has previously been disproved numerous times... you spew out in a repititious manner....almost robotically. Its like you have been brainwashed by your gutter press into believing your own exceptionalism.

Dullards!

No wonder the rest of the world is laughing at ye.
Perhaps you should call for another referendum its been 4 years since the last one thats a generation isnt it?

Surely your superior arguments will convice the rest of the scottish electorate this time.
0
reply
Xodrama.
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#65
Report 1 month ago
#65
(Original post by That'sGreat)
Find one way Scotland will manage to bypass a currency crisis, a reputation for defaulting on massive levels of debt, the Catalonia crisis and the EU coming out to say it isn't happening.
EU coming out to say it isn't happening.
No you are lying they never said that.
0
reply
Nucky
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#66
Report 1 month ago
#66
(Original post by paul514)
Perhaps you should call for another referendum its been 4 years since the last one thats a generation isnt it?

Surely your superior arguments will convice the rest of the scottish electorate this time.
Nah.....we are going to make sure the rest of the UK is kept within the EU first:thumbsup:
0
reply
the bear
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#67
Report 1 month ago
#67
sure why not ?

https://sd.keepcalm-o-matic.co.uk/i/...y-together.png
0
reply
paul514
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#68
Report 1 month ago
#68
(Original post by Nucky)
Nah.....we are going to make sure the rest of the UK is kept within the EU first:thumbsup:
Good luck with that :rolleyes:
0
reply
L i b
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#69
Report 1 month ago
#69
(Original post by Xodrama.)
Yes I know that already. Well everyone please stop pointing out the obvious.
Well, rather obviously I will if you stop contradicting things that you claim to know.
0
reply
L i b
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#70
Report 1 month ago
#70
(Original post by Nucky)
Honestly the lack of comprehension displayed by the britnats on this thread :eek3:.

Same auld tired bull being repeated robotically. Duff that has previously been disproved numerous times... you spew out in a repititious manner....almost robotically. Its like you have been brainwashed by your gutter press into believing your own exceptionalism.

Dullards!

No wonder the rest of the world is laughing at ye.
I'd hope this would be a forum for relatively sensible discussion rather than the nonsense people get on Twitter. Simply saying something has been "disproved" doesn't make it so and claiming people to have been "brainwashed" isn't an argument.
1
reply
SkidiKatKat
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#71
Report 1 month ago
#71
No, that'd just split apart an already small country, and have extremely negative economic impacts on Scotland, you can still be patriotic about being Scottish without ditching the United Kingdom, which English, Welsh, Irish and Scottish have all fought to protect throughout history.
0
reply
L i b
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#72
Report 1 month ago
#72
(Original post by Xodrama.)
And the chances are quite high. The Scottish legal system is 100% EU compliant
It wouldn't be if Scotland was an independent country. European law is largely focused on regulation and most of these issues are dealt with UK-wide. Compliance isn't simply about cutting and pasting laws, it's about implementation - and a new state would not achieve that.

we would be applying from a position of recent and long-term membership, and there are plenty of MEPs who would support them being admitted quickly. It's likely they would end up having to adopt the euro, which they would prefer to avoid, but that's a small price to pay to be rid of the Tories forever.
Yes, because obviously the main opposition party in Scotland is never going to be elected as the government of Scotland...

I'd also point out that the European Commission has been under a centre-right administration since 2004. If you look at Jean-Claude Juncker and see that as a particularly attractive leader, then, well, I'm not sure quite where to start.

As for the Euro, well, all I can say is try running a Scottish independence campaign that's honest about that. Watch support plummet below 20%. [/quote]
0
reply
L i b
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#73
Report 1 month ago
#73
(Original post by Nucky)
2) Complete bunkem to suggest an independent Scotlands passage back into the EU would be anything other than straightforward and expediated.
I really isn't. I, for one, think an independent Scotland could get into the EU eventually. I suspect, however, that the terms of that entry might make it rather unattractive.

3) Scotland is a wealthy nation. Scotland contributes £200 billion a year to UK GDP. Scotland receives a block grant back from Westminster of £45 billion a year to cover public services. That is a big shortfall.
I'm rather having to bite my tongue here if you're confusing public revenue with GDP. Moreover, it's the Scottish Parliament that receives a block grant, not "Scotland" - public expenditure through reserved services is considerably higher (and, incidentally, the block grant is not £45 billion: the total managed expenditure of the Scottish Government is only £42 billion, and a portion of that is made up through other means).

With regards to the supposed deficit...perhaps it would educate some of the more dense headed posters if they had a look at the breakdown of that deficit. I think you will find that a huge chunk of it is made up with Scotlands supposed allocation of UK debt. Indeed, we are supposed to assume that Scotland being 8.5% of the UK's population is respnsible for circa 35% of the UK's total debt. A nice little Westminster accounting trick that.
Debt does not contribute directly to a deficit. Indeed, debt does not appear in Scottish Government accounting - only debt interest does, which is far from the most important factor in Scotland's notional deficit. In terms of one part of the UK accounting for a large share of the UK's deficit, that's quite apparent from our public spending figures: if one part breaks even, and another has a deficit of only a pound, then it is accountable for 100% of the national deficit.

It might help if you actually understood some of these things before going around calling others "dense". There's nothing wrong with not knowing stuff if you interact in an even remotely civil way, but if you come striding in throwing insults while showing your own shortcomings for all to see, you're going to get called out on it.
1
reply
paul514
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#74
Report 1 month ago
#74
(Original post by L i b)
I really isn't. I, for one, think an independent Scotland could get into the EU eventually. I suspect, however, that the terms of that entry might make it rather unattractive.



I'm rather having to bite my tongue here if you're confusing public revenue with GDP. Moreover, it's the Scottish Parliament that receives a block grant, not "Scotland" - public expenditure through reserved services is considerably higher (and, incidentally, the block grant is not £45 billion: the total managed expenditure of the Scottish Government is only £42 billion, and a portion of that is made up through other means).



Debt does not contribute directly to a deficit. Indeed, debt does not appear in Scottish Government accounting - only debt interest does, which is far from the most important factor in Scotland's notional deficit. In terms of one part of the UK accounting for a large share of the UK's deficit, that's quite apparent from our public spending figures: if one part breaks even, and another has a deficit of only a pound, then it is accountable for 100% of the national deficit.

It might help if you actually understood some of these things before going around calling others "dense". There's nothing wrong with not knowing stuff if you interact in an even remotely civil way, but if you come striding in throwing insults while showing your own shortcomings for all to see, you're going to get called out on it.
Dont you even dare come on here talking sense
0
reply
L i b
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#75
Report 1 month ago
#75
(Original post by paul514)
Dont you even dare come on here talking sense
I try to avoid it as much as possible!

The EU one is interesting though. Despite some of the rhetoric, four in ten voters in Scotland want out - and being in gets the benefit of being the status quo, at least for now. I'm a Remain voter, but even my principles have taken a bit of a bash given the recent direction of the EU and faced with Full EU rather than the EU Lite that the UK has enjoyed for the past few decades, I can't really see it being an open and shut decision. The UK also shields Scotland somewhat from the choice of being a contributer to the EU's coffers.

If you ask me, the SNP should have pitched their tent firmly in EEA territory. They'd be able to look farmers and fishermen in the eye, at least, and it would enable them to have a serious answer on questions like currency (if they could ever get around to it) and the England-Scotland border.

I appreciate I'm probably just inviting loads of "our public spending figures (produced by the Scottish Government) are a unionist plot", "the British Government lied about secret oil fields", "the Scotland Act 2016 never happened - and if it did, it was shite anyway" type comments, which is depressing enough, but c'est la vie.
Last edited by L i b; 1 month ago
0
reply
Nucky
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#76
Report 1 month ago
#76
(Original post by L i b)
I really isn't. I, for one, think an independent Scotland could get into the EU eventually. I suspect, however, that the terms of that entry might make it rather unattractive.



I'm rather having to bite my tongue here if you're confusing public revenue with GDP. Moreover, it's the Scottish Parliament that receives a block grant, not "Scotland" - public expenditure through reserved services is considerably higher (and, incidentally, the block grant is not £45 billion: the total managed expenditure of the Scottish Government is only £42 billion, and a portion of that is made up through other means).



Debt does not contribute directly to a deficit. Indeed, debt does not appear in Scottish Government accounting - only debt interest does, which is far from the most important factor in Scotland's notional deficit. In terms of one part of the UK accounting for a large share of the UK's deficit, that's quite apparent from our public spending figures: if one part breaks even, and another has a deficit of only a pound, then it is accountable for 100% of the national deficit.

It might help if you actually understood some of these things before going around calling others "dense". There's nothing wrong with not knowing stuff if you interact in an even remotely civil way, but if you come striding in throwing insults while showing your own shortcomings for all to see, you're going to get called out on it.
Oh dear......where to start.

I have provided evidence by way of comments made by high level EU and Spanish officials suggesting Scotlands path into the EU will not be opposed and indeed should straightforward.

If your now assertion is that Scotland could get into the EU but the terms of entry would be unattractive, please provide evidence.

Or is it just ill judged opinion.

2) If you had actually read my posts you would have realised that at no time did I suggest that GDP was he same as revenue. The point I was making was that similar sized European economies do not run such high deficits.


Which begs the question, why does Scotland appear to do so..

Have a look at the link from taxresearch I posted earlier. It explains a lot. By the way the author is not a Scotsman. He is a professor of Accounting at the University of London.

The basics of the argument are that the statistical basis for GERS is gunk ( but any sensible person with an interest knows that) and that Scotlands revenue take is grossly underrated and exenditure grossly overrated.

I look forward to your detailed refutal of the academics position.

Ofcourse after reading the last sentence of your last post, thats if you can be arsed:thumbsup:.

But post a lot of tosh and accept the flak.
0
reply
paul514
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#77
Report 1 month ago
#77
(Original post by L i b)
I try to avoid it as much as possible!

The EU one is interesting though. Despite some of the rhetoric, four in ten voters in Scotland want out - and being in gets the benefit of being the status quo, at least for now. I'm a Remain voter, but even my principles have taken a bit of a bash given the recent direction of the EU and faced with Full EU rather than the EU Lite that the UK has enjoyed for the past few decades, I can't really see it being an open and shut decision. The UK also shields Scotland somewhat from the choice of being a contributer to the EU's coffers.

If you ask me, the SNP should have pitched their tent firmly in EEA territory. They'd be able to look farmers and fishermen in the eye, at least, and it would enable them to have a serious answer on questions like currency (if they could ever get around to it) and the England-Scotland border.

I appreciate I'm probably just inviting loads of "our public spending figures (produced by the Scottish Government) are a unionist plot", "the British Government lied about secret oil fields", "the Scotland Act 2016 never happened - and if it did, it was shite anyway" type comments, which is depressing enough, but c'est la vie.
Well you got your reply :cool:
0
reply
L i b
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#78
Report 1 month ago
#78
(Original post by Nucky)
Oh dear......where to start.

I have provided evidence by way of comments made by high level EU and Spanish officials suggesting Scotlands path into the EU will not be opposed and indeed should straightforward.

If your now assertion is that Scotland could get into the EU but the terms of entry would be unattractive, please provide evidence.

Or is it just ill judged opinion.
You make it sound as if I have changed my assertion: a claim I find rather puzzling, given that I never provided any previous assertion to you.

I'm saying that an EU without a rebate, without Britain's range of hard-won opt-outs, with membership of the Euro and with the fiscal controls imposed within the Eurozone isn't really a hugely appealing prospect.

2) If you had actually read my posts you would have realised that at no time did I suggest that GDP was he same as revenue. The point I was making was that similar sized European economies do not run such high deficits.
You certainly suggested it by conflating the two. That might have been unintentional, but it was certainly the outcome.

GDP does not link particularly well to what a country can raise in tax revenue. GDP can be generated in many ways and with differing levels of taxable income created. If your point was simply that other countries have a similar GDP to Scotland but raise more in tax, I'd simply say "well, good for them". They are not Scotland.

Have a look at the link from taxresearch I posted earlier. It explains a lot. By the way the author is not a Scotsman. He is a professor of Accounting at the University of London.
Yes, unfortunately I know Richard Murphy's work well and generally dismiss him as a crank when it comes to this subject.

His contention, if you've gone through it, is broadly that tax take from spending outside of Scotland is not counted as being raised in Scotland. The Fraser of Allander Institute, who are actual economists - and I would recommend their work, pointed out that even taking on board his assumptions made only a "relatively small" difference--

“Changing assumptions about how much spending is allocated ‘for’ Scotland or spent ‘in’ Scotland in GERS will change the net fiscal position. But any revisions are relatively small.”

He was, of course, challenged on all of this before a committee of the Scottish Parliament. As it turned out, none of the rest of the panel - largely composed of some quite impressive people - agreed with his analysis. After quite a lot of toing and froing, he watered down his contention somewhat, saying--

"we would maybe be talking about a couple of percentage points or so of the stated Scottish deficit. However, we are using estimates and very rough-and-ready stuff that was done on the basis of blogging, not on the basis of doing a lot of deep searching. I am not pretending that I have done that."

Indeed, he was questioned not only on the basis of his position (which is, in itself, ridiculous) but also on the actual quantum of difference it would make (which he had absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support). If you're seriously basing your case on that, then good luck to you.

The basics of the argument are that the statistical basis for GERS is gunk ( but any sensible person with an interest knows that)
Strange how not a single economist invited before the same committee as Richard Murphy agreed to that, then, when pointedly invited to do so. Indeed, Margaret Cuthbert - who is a Scottish nationalist - called him out for calling GERS "crap" and asserting the huge amount of work that had gone into making it effective.

This sort of thing is nothing more than denialism. You mention that Richard Murphy is not a Scotsman - sure, but he does have a rather unhealthy attachment to the limelight, attaches himself to causes and seems to make an arse of himself at every turn. He tried to get himself attached to Labour's treasury team at one point, which led John McDonnell to deny association with him, saying "he is not the economic adviser and never has been, because we doubted his judgment, unfortunately"

When even John McDonnell doubts your judgment, you're not really on very strong ground - I would suggest.
Last edited by L i b; 1 month ago
0
reply
Nucky
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#79
Report 1 month ago
#79
(Original post by L i b)
You make it sound as if I have changed my assertion: a claim I find rather puzzling, given that I never provided any previous assertion to you.

I'm saying that an EU without a rebate, without Britain's range of hard-won opt-outs, with membership of the Euro and with the fiscal controls imposed within the Eurozone isn't really a hugely appealing prospect.



You certainly suggested it by conflating the two. That might have been unintentional, but it was certainly the outcome.

GDP does not link particularly well to what a country can raise in tax revenue. GDP can be generated in many ways and with differing levels of taxable income created. If your point was simply that other countries have a similar GDP to Scotland but raise more in tax, I'd simply say "well, good for them". They are not Scotland.



Yes, unfortunately I know Richard Murphy's work well and generally dismiss him as a crank when it comes to this subject.

His contention, if you've gone through it, is broadly that tax take from spending outside of Scotland is not counted as being raised in Scotland. The Fraser of Allander Institute, who are actual economists - and I would recommend their work, pointed out that even taking on board his assumptions made only a "relatively small" difference--

“Changing assumptions about how much spending is allocated ‘for’ Scotland or spent ‘in’ Scotland in GERS will change the net fiscal position. But any revisions are relatively small.”

He was, of course, challenged on all of this before a committee of the Scottish Parliament. As it turned out, none of the rest of the panel - largely composed of some quite impressive people - agreed with his analysis. After quite a lot of toing and froing, he watered down his contention somewhat, saying--

"we would maybe be talking about a couple of percentage points or so of the stated Scottish deficit. However, we are using estimates and very rough-and-ready stuff that was done on the basis of blogging, not on the basis of doing a lot of deep searching. I am not pretending that I have done that."

Indeed, he was questioned not only on the basis of his position (which is, in itself, ridiculous) but also on the actual quantum of difference it would make (which he had absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support). If you're seriously basing your case on that, then good luck to you.



Strange how not a single economist invited before the same committee as Richard Murphy agreed to that, then, when pointedly invited to do so. Indeed, Margaret Cuthbert - who is a Scottish nationalist - called him out for calling GERS "crap" and asserting the huge amount of work that had gone into making it effective.

This sort of thing is nothing more than denialism. You mention that Richard Murphy is not a Scotsman - sure, but he does have a rather unhealthy attachment to the limelight, attaches himself to causes and seems to make an arse of himself at every turn. He tried to get himself attached to Labour's treasury team at one point, which led John McDonnell to deny association with him, saying "he is not the economic adviser and never has been, because we doubted his judgment, unfortunately"

When even John McDonnell doubts your judgment, you're not really on very strong ground - I would suggest.
1) So..you cannot evidence in anyway your assertion that Scotland will face an arduous and/or lengthy time entering the EU. Thanks.

You mention the EU opt outs that Britain has negotiated and that an independent Scotland would lose.:confused:...Hmmm correct me if I am wrong but is Scotland not about to lose them anyway. This being against the wishes of 62% of its electorate and every single local authority.

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.

Scotlands exact relationship with EU is an issue that will be settled by its people after independence.

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.

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

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.

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.

I challenge anyone to say they can provide an accurate picture of the in/out Scottish public finance sheet.

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.

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?

Scotland pays for UK level initiatives. Obviously these are majority based in London and the South East. Scotland does not directly benefit. Further the income generated from these initiatives is never then given an allocation back as Scottish revenue. It is like holding income generating shares in a company but the other shareholder nicking all the income profit. By the way this is not unique to Scotland. The North of England, Wales and NI no doubt also suffer this blight.
Last edited by Nucky; 1 month ago
0
reply
L i b
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#80
Report 1 month ago
#80
(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.:confused:...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]
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Are you chained to your phone?

Yes (109)
19.57%
Yes, but I'm trying to cut back (227)
40.75%
Nope, not that interesting (221)
39.68%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise