The Scottish Politics Thread

[Dogbert]

But surely it's not whether any Scottish Politician / Political party want a Second Independaance referendum , thats a decision of the Scottish people , and that body of people did not say that this was a 'Once in a generation' referendum

That fact that the 2nd main political party lead by their most charismtic leader got roundly defeated on a single policy of "No to Indy Ref 2 " and lost seats and voter share on the last election , and that polls suggest a movement to a majority support for independence , and the distinct possibility of an SNP majority in next years Holyrood Election

If a new party in favour of independence suddenly emerged and won a majority at next year's Holyrood election , would that be a mandate for a second indy ref poll ?

[Biffer]

But surely it's not whether any Scottish Politician / Political party want a Second Independaance referendum , thats a decision of the Scottish people , and that body of people did not say that this was a 'Once in a generation' referendum

That fact that the 2nd main political party lead by their most charismtic leader got roundly defeated on a single policy of "No to Indy Ref 2 " and lost seats and voter share on the last election , and that polls suggest a movement to a majority support for independence , and the distinct possibility of an SNP majority in next years Holyrood Election

If a new party in favour of independence suddenly emerged and won a majority at next year's Holyrood election , would that be a mandate for a second indy ref poll ?

That’s the thing. There’s a principle in UK democracy that no parliament can bind a future parliament. That applies at Westminster and at Holyrood.

In a democracy, if people vote for a policy, that policy should be enacted.

[clydecloggie]

you have to be deliberately thick to translate:

"This is a once in a generation opportunity to put Scotland's future in Scotland's hands"

into

"We promise that if we lose this referendum, we will not be looking to have another one for at least a generation, regardless of what the people of Scotland say they want, and also regardless of how the wider world might change. Promised!"

It's all a bit desperate imho.

But hey, if you're the kind of person who buys stuff they don't need because the shop says "50% off, ONLY TODAY!!!!!", at least I don't have to take your opinions on the economy seriously

Basically there are two ways to sell your product: the now or never approach, and the make them afraid approach. Yes took the first, BT the second. Both approaches are over the top, just like all advertising is over the top.

[MoreOrLess]

To be honest, I think it probably would. Particularly if that 2nd party made a significant impact on the SNP majority.

I think anyone who opposes independence on principal is basically the other side of the same coin as those who only want independence because "fuck the english" and "tartan". If there's a robust case for a prosperous independent Scotland (i.e. not relying on $120/bbl oil) then it's much harder to make a case against it.

If there was an alternative to the SNP who could demonstrate even a simplified understanding of economics I think that would go a long way to assuage some of the fears around an SNP led indy Scotland.

[Northern Lights]

Yeah we should definitely be having referendums twice a decade on whether to break the most successful political union the world has seen because you know, opinion polls and well things change and even we said once in a generation we didn’t mean it because we lie.

Let’s have one every 5 years just be sure, in absolutely no way does this kill business confidence and give a stable political and economic backdrop to invest.

[MoreOrLess]

Yeah we should definitely be having referendums twice a decade on whether to break the most successful political union the world has seen because you know, opinion polls and well things change and even we said once in a generation we didn’t mean it because we lie.

Let’s have one every 5 years just be sure, in absolutely no way does this kill business confidence and give a stable political and economic backdrop to invest.

I'm not sure it's the constantly looming referendum that's killing business confidence or de-stabilising the political and economic backdrop. That's been happening for the last 10 years.

[Northern Lights]

you have to be deliberately thick to translate:

"This is a once in a generation opportunity to put Scotland's future in Scotland's hands"

into

"We promise that if we lose this referendum, we will not be looking to have another one for at least a generation, regardless of what the people of Scotland say they want, and also regardless of how the wider world might change. Promised!"

It's all a bit desperate imho.

But hey, if you're the kind of person who buys stuff they don't need because the shop says "50% off, ONLY TODAY!!!!!", at least I don't have to take your opinions on the economy seriously

Basically there are two ways to sell your product: the now or never approach, and the make them afraid approach. Yes took the first, BT the second. Both approaches are over the top, just like all advertising is over the top.

Given the people of Scotland put the constitution roughly 7th on the things that matter to them, you have to be very thick to think this is the burning question that needs resolved ahead of health, education, jobs, housing etc etc

Never mind the economic arguments of Indy, if the snp were remotely competent at running the stuff they do have power of it might go a long way to convince the rest of that it won’t be an unmitigated disaster.

[Northern Lights]

Yeah we should definitely be having referendums twice a decade on whether to break the most successful political union the world has seen because you know, opinion polls and well things change and even we said once in a generation we didn’t mean it because we lie.

Let’s have one every 5 years just be sure, in absolutely no way does this kill business confidence and give a stable political and economic backdrop to invest.

I'm not sure it's the constantly looming referendum that's killing business confidence or de-stabilising the political and economic backdrop. That's been happening for the last 10 years.

I can tell you for a fact it is definitely a contributing factor and will only increase with the possibility of it being asked again a further killer to investment.

[MoreOrLess]

Never mind the economic arguments of Indy, if the snp were remotely competent at running the stuff they do have power of it might go a long way to convince the rest of that it won’t be an unmitigated disaster.

This is the most disappointing part. The SNP have had the best part of 15 years to demonstrate that they are capable of growing the economy, improving health, education etc. and it's difficult to find much evidence that anything's going the right way.

And we're expected to believe it's all Westminster's fault and they'll magically turn things around with independence. All the while we have ongoing exam fiascos, hate speech bills and bizarre local lockdowns. There's nothing remotely impressive about anything they are doing.

[MoreOrLess]

Yeah we should definitely be having referendums twice a decade on whether to break the most successful political union the world has seen because you know, opinion polls and well things change and even we said once in a generation we didn’t mean it because we lie.

Let’s have one every 5 years just be sure, in absolutely no way does this kill business confidence and give a stable political and economic backdrop to invest.

I'm not sure it's the constantly looming referendum that's killing business confidence or de-stabilising the political and economic backdrop. That's been happening for the last 10 years.

I can tell you for a fact it is definitely a contributing factor and will only increase with the possibility of it being asked again a further killer to investment.

Sorry, my comment was perhaps a little flippant.

It's definitely a factor, but it's one of a plethora of reasons that will discourage investment in Scotland.

[Slick]

To be honest, I think it probably would. Particularly if that 2nd party made a significant impact on the SNP majority.

I think anyone who opposes independence on principal is basically the other side of the same coin as those who only want independence because "fuck the english" and "tartan". If there's a robust case for a prosperous independent Scotland (i.e. not relying on $120/bbl oil) then it's much harder to make a case against it.

If there was an alternative to the SNP who could demonstrate even a simplified understanding of economics I think that would go a long way to assuage some of the fears around an SNP led indy Scotland.

I think this is it. There will not be many people ideolgically opposed to an independent Scotland but there are a lot, me included, that think we need to be in a much better position before we look at it.

[tc27]

I’d really love to know how the SNP can be held to a promise that was never made, whilst the Unionist parties get a free pass for breaking every promise they made in the infamous ‘Vow’.

Leaving aside the usual nationalist dud talking points the 'Vow' was fully delivered.

https://www.scotsman.com/regions/lord-s ... ll-1489840

I think this is it. There will not be many people ideolgically opposed to an independent Scotland but there are a lot, me included, that think we need to be in a much better position before we look at it.

Guess we will be talking about that tomorrow....anyway happy GERSmas eve everyone.

[Caley_Red]

To be honest, I think it probably would. Particularly if that 2nd party made a significant impact on the SNP majority.

I think anyone who opposes independence on principal is basically the other side of the same coin as those who only want independence because "fuck the english" and "tartan". If there's a robust case for a prosperous independent Scotland (i.e. not relying on $120/bbl oil) then it's much harder to make a case against it.

If there was an alternative to the SNP who could demonstrate even a simplified understanding of economics I think that would go a long way to assuage some of the fears around an SNP led indy Scotland.

I think this is it. There will not be many people ideolgically opposed to an independent Scotland but there are a lot, me included, that think we need to be in a much better position before we look at it.

Much better being an understatement, the country would need to be in a good position with national debt, fiscal deficit, policy record and institutions before I'd even trouble myself in engaging with the 'Yes' movement. Any convincing proposal would have to have the prerequisites of a good government in Edinburgh and Nicola Sturgeon has done an objectively bad job of running the country, in my view.

Would be genuinely interested to see anyone's rationale for postulating that she has materially improved any area of the country or that any of the criticisms she leveled at Brexit cannot be boomeranged and amplified back to 'Scexit'.

I personally can't believe people are ready put their eggs in Sturgeon's basket- her ineptitude and inability to understand the profound impact her policies have (and will have) on the economy, will make independence even more abysmal than the economics suggest.

[MoreOrLess]

Given the people of Scotland put the constitution roughly 7th on the things that matter to them, you have to be very thick to think this is the burning question that needs resolved ahead of health, education, jobs, housing etc etc

I don't understand this. If this is correct, why does Scotland consistently vote for the party whose only strength is reforming their 7th most important issue. Particularly when that party are demonstrably poor at issues 1-6?

[westport]

I’d really love to know how the SNP can be held to a promise that was never made, whilst the Unionist parties get a free pass for breaking every promise they made in the infamous ‘Vow’.

Leaving aside the usual nationalist dud talking points the 'Vow' was fully delivered.

https://www.scotsman.com/regions/lord-s ... ll-1489840

I think this is it. There will not be many people ideolgically opposed to an independent Scotland but there are a lot, me included, that think we need to be in a much better position before we look at it.

Guess we will be talking about that tomorrow....anyway happy GERSmas eve everyone.

The excuses Proffered will be in this order

GERS is a Westminster Conspiracy

Doesn't include exports through English ports or Whisky export tax

Were only in charge of the things that are going Right

Its Boris's fault

[Northern Lights]

Given the people of Scotland put the constitution roughly 7th on the things that matter to them, you have to be very thick to think this is the burning question that needs resolved ahead of health, education, jobs, housing etc etc

I don't understand this. If this is correct, why does Scotland consistently vote for the party whose only strength is reforming their 7th most important issue. Particularly when that party are demonstrably poor at issues 1-6?

Part of the issue with this is the opposition is so weak, pains me to say it but none of the alternatives look like a government in waiting. The opposition just send their "B" team to Holyrood which is the reverse of the SNP who target Holyrood, so Holyrood ends up being a glorified group of councillors which was one of the concerns with devolution in the first place.

Lot to happen between now and May and maybe the opposition will try and load their lists with better candidates, tories have already made their move with Douglas Ross as leader be interesting to see if they can build a team around him that isnt lightweight.

[tc27]

GERS headlines:

Including North Sea Oil Scotland has a deceit of £15.1 billion or 8.6 of GDP

Scots pay £308 per person less than UK average in taxes but get £1,633 more in spending.

Incidentally the white paper the SG produced in 2014 predicted North Sea oil would generate £9.4bn a year.
Last year North Sea oil generated £650 million in taxes.

[Caley_Red]

GERS headlines:

Including North Sea Oil Scotland has a deceit of £15.1 billion or 8.6 of GDP

Scots pay £308 per person less than UK average in taxes but get £1,633 more in spending.

Incidentally the white paper the SG produced in 2014 predicted North Sea oil would generate £9.4bn a year.
Last year North Sea oil generated £650 million in taxes.

If I were standing at the dispatch box, three questions:

1. On day dot of independence, you'll have to finance that budget deficit by issuing debt, cutting spending or increasing taxes- what combination will it be?

2. What currency will you be issuing said debt in and how to you intend to fund it and (if necessary) hedge it given you have no central bank?

3. What do you estimate Scotland's cost of debt will be and how are you going to reduce Scotland's debt to GDP (esp given likely lower corp tax, emigration and a higher unemployment rate)?

In reality, there's hundreds of questions I would like to ask but these are the most important.

A credible plan should be able to address these, the answers will be rough but the least they could do is be upfront with people as it will be ruinous for a portion of the electorate.

[Northern Lights]

GERS headlines:

Including North Sea Oil Scotland has a deceit of £15.1 billion or 8.6 of GDP

Scots pay £308 per person less than UK average in taxes but get £1,633 more in spending.

Incidentally the white paper the SG produced in 2014 predicted North Sea oil would generate £9.4bn a year.
Last year North Sea oil generated £650 million in taxes.

Even with fantasy oil price we would still have a massive deficit.

Mind churning out ferries at over £300m for 2 of them when the budget was £97m, sorry they havent actually managed to churn out one of them yet shows the level of financial incontinence from these charlatans.

Seems the fiasco over the kids hospital in embra came down to a spreadsheet error which wasnt picked up by anyone, we are extremely shit at delivering big projects at pretty much all levels of government.

[Northern Lights]

In today's Times

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/scot ... 338337_101

You can’t have independence and be EU member, Alex Neil tells SNP
Kieran Andrews, Scottish Political Editor
Wednesday August 26 2020, 12.01am, The Times
The SNP plans to seek membership of the European Union should Scotland become independent
ANDY BUCHANAN

Voters will not back the SNP’s vision of Scottish independence in the European Union because it would erect trade barriers with the rest of the UK, one of Nicola Sturgeon’s former ministers has claimed.

Alex Neil, who served in Ms Sturgeon’s first cabinet and backed Brexit, said that joining the EU would mean separate regulations and additional barriers to trade within Britain. It is the SNP’s policy to seek membership of the EU if Scotland becomes independent.

“You’ve got to be honest about these matters because if Scotland was in a customs union, ie, the EU, and the rest of the UK was out of the customs union, by definition there are going to be customs barriers at the border between us and the rest of the UK,” Mr Neil told ITV Border.

“And I don’t believe people in another independence referendum will vote for that. There is a better alternative and that is for an independent Scotland to join the European Free Trade Association.

“That gives us free trade with the entirety of Europe, not just those in the EU but the entirety of Europe, through what’s called the European Economic Area without the downside of being in a customs union or many other downsides on fishing and other things in relation to EU membership.”

The SNP has been buoyed by a series of polls that put Yes ahead. Research published last week by Panelbase reversed the result of the 2014 referendum. With only 7 per cent of the public unsure, the poll found that 51 per cent planned to support independence in another referendum, while 42 per cent favoured the Union.

The government’s annual expenditure and revenue figures will be published today and will show how public money is raised and spent in Scotland.

Last year’s report showed that Scotland’s theoretical deficit had fallen for a third year in a row to £12.6 billion, or 7 per cent of GDP.

This year’s figures, for the financial year ending March 31, will show the effects of the beginning of lockdown and the increase to Holyrood’s budget through some of the UK government’s additional spending to cope with the pandemic.

David Phillips, an economist with the Institute for Fiscal Studies, said that this would leave Scotland with a higher deficit than the £11.2 billion assumed by Ms Sturgeon’s growth commission forecast in 2018.

“This is partly due to the impact of Covid-19 and partly because even prior to the crisis the UK government had released the purse strings,” he told The Scottish Sun. “Addressing this bigger deficit would require greater tax rises and/or spending restraint — effectively austerity — or a strong uptick in growth.”

An SNP spokesman said: “The overwhelming majority of people in Scotland oppose Brexit. And we believe that the best way to build a more prosperous and equal Scotland is to be a full independent member of the EU.”

Mr Neil is one of 12 SNP MSPs who will stand down at next May’s Holyrood election, including one third of Ms Sturgeon’s cabinet. Some have questioned whether so many would be quitting if they believed that independence is on the horizon in the next parliament.

Twenty-two of the 129 MSPs will not seek re-election next May.

[Caley_Red]

In today's Times

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/scot ... 338337_101

You can’t have independence and be EU member, Alex Neil tells SNP
Kieran Andrews, Scottish Political Editor
Wednesday August 26 2020, 12.01am, The Times
The SNP plans to seek membership of the European Union should Scotland become independent
ANDY BUCHANAN

Voters will not back the SNP’s vision of Scottish independence in the European Union because it would erect trade barriers with the rest of the UK, one of Nicola Sturgeon’s former ministers has claimed.

Alex Neil, who served in Ms Sturgeon’s first cabinet and backed Brexit, said that joining the EU would mean separate regulations and additional barriers to trade within Britain. It is the SNP’s policy to seek membership of the EU if Scotland becomes independent.

“You’ve got to be honest about these matters because if Scotland was in a customs union, ie, the EU, and the rest of the UK was out of the customs union, by definition there are going to be customs barriers at the border between us and the rest of the UK,” Mr Neil told ITV Border.

“And I don’t believe people in another independence referendum will vote for that. There is a better alternative and that is for an independent Scotland to join the European Free Trade Association.

“That gives us free trade with the entirety of Europe, not just those in the EU but the entirety of Europe, through what’s called the European Economic Area without the downside of being in a customs union or many other downsides on fishing and other things in relation to EU membership.”

The SNP has been buoyed by a series of polls that put Yes ahead. Research published last week by Panelbase reversed the result of the 2014 referendum. With only 7 per cent of the public unsure, the poll found that 51 per cent planned to support independence in another referendum, while 42 per cent favoured the Union.

The government’s annual expenditure and revenue figures will be published today and will show how public money is raised and spent in Scotland.

Last year’s report showed that Scotland’s theoretical deficit had fallen for a third year in a row to £12.6 billion, or 7 per cent of GDP.

This year’s figures, for the financial year ending March 31, will show the effects of the beginning of lockdown and the increase to Holyrood’s budget through some of the UK government’s additional spending to cope with the pandemic.

David Phillips, an economist with the Institute for Fiscal Studies, said that this would leave Scotland with a higher deficit than the £11.2 billion assumed by Ms Sturgeon’s growth commission forecast in 2018.

“This is partly due to the impact of Covid-19 and partly because even prior to the crisis the UK government had released the purse strings,” he told The Scottish Sun. “Addressing this bigger deficit would require greater tax rises and/or spending restraint — effectively austerity — or a strong uptick in growth.”

An SNP spokesman said: “The overwhelming majority of people in Scotland oppose Brexit. And we believe that the best way to build a more prosperous and equal Scotland is to be a full independent member of the EU.”

Mr Neil is one of 12 SNP MSPs who will stand down at next May’s Holyrood election, including one third of Ms Sturgeon’s cabinet. Some have questioned whether so many would be quitting if they believed that independence is on the horizon in the next parliament.

Twenty-two of the 129 MSPs will not seek re-election next May.

Conveniently ducks the fact that EFTA entails freedom of movement which will mean manned checkpoints at the border and passports, not sure that'll be a vote winner either.

[tc27]

I think the whole grasping at EFTA/EEA shows how badly lacking in ideas they are.

As Caley stated joining those orgs/treaties would still require customs, veterinary and regulatory checks at the border with England. I think the only contentious issue it would solve would be it would not require Scotland to rejoin the Common Fisher Policy that goes with EU membership.

[Northern Lights]

I think the whole grasping at EFTA/EEA shows how badly lacking in ideas they are.

As Caley stated joining those orgs/treaties would still require customs, veterinary and regulatory checks at the border with England. I think the only contentious issue it would solve would be it would not require Scotland to rejoin the Common Fisher Policy that goes with EU membership.

Yep but like everything else they are burying this sort of detail, much better to try and sell fantasy over reality. It worked for the Brexiteers so it might work for the Nats but you would hope enough people arent swayed by bullshit the second time around

[Northern Lights]

Also in today's Times

Coronavirus in Scotland: Nicola Sturgeon ‘playing politics with the arts’
Mike Wade
Wednesday August 26 2020, 12.01am, The Times
The Scottish government has been accused of not passing on funds from Westminster for the arts
ROBBIE JACK

Nicola Sturgeon has been accused of “playing politics” with the arts after she said there was no money left for the sector in Scotland despite receiving almost £100 million from the chancellor.

The Scottish government created a £10 million revenue relief fund for performing arts venues in July. Two days later Rishi Sunak revealed a £1.57 billion package to save UK arts facilities, which allotted £97 million through spending “consequentials” to Scotland.

The package was “the most positive support I’ve heard from a UK government about the arts in decades”, Fergus Linehan, director of the Edinburgh International Festival, said. David Greig, the artistic director of Edinburgh’s Royal Lyceum theatre, said it was very significant.

Figures published by Creative Scotland show that just £24.5 million of the sum has so far been allocated in Scotland. Yet when Ms Sturgeon addressed the subject of culture at her daily Covid-19 briefing, she made no mention of the other £74.5 million

She said she was not making a political point but “a statement of fact” and that the “Scottish government’s resources are finite, because we don’t have access to unlimited borrowing powers the way the UK government does”.

She added: “We come to a point where we just can’t do any more because we have no more financial flexibility.” She appealed to Mr Sunak to extend the furlough scheme beyond October to protect jobs in the cultural sector.

Her remarks angered promoters, venue owners and performers. Many are incensed that the cultural landscape has been persistently overlooked by the Holyrood government and its agencies in emergency funding announcements.

Donald MacLeod, a Glasgow nightclub owner and SNP voter, felt “betrayed and let down” by Ms Sturgeon. Tens of thousands of jobs were at risk in late night venues because of a lack of support, he said. “The night economy has been socially distanced from funding. Most of the people in this sector and the comedy sector don’t buy ‘It’s Westminster’s fault’. They are playing too much politics with people’s livelihoods.”

Mark Nelson, a comedian who has fronted live-streamed shows to raise money for the Stand comedy club, sent tweets to Ms Sturgeon and Fiona Hyslop, the culture secretary. “I’m afraid ignoring the problem or blaming Westminster won’t work. This isn’t going away. £97 million has been given to you to help the arts and culture sector. Please award that money now,” he said.

Maurice Golden, the Scottish Conservative shadow economy and culture secretary, accused the SNP of “fiscal mismanagement”. “The culture budget has clearly been underspent and yet the first minister instantly complains about borrowing powers,” he said. “The first minister claims not to play politics but what else can this be?”

The row over arts follows a furore over a small business grants scheme, in which some owners accused the Scottish government of failing to deliver a £2.3 billion support package in full after the money was allocated by the chancellor.

Mr MacLeod also accused the government of “elitism”, citing a combined award of £7.5 million made by Creative Scotland to 20 “highbrow” venues, including Edinburgh’s Royal Lyceum, Glasgow’s Tron and the Dundee Rep theatre.

Iain Gordon, the general manager of Glasgow’s Pavilion theatre, said only a “wee clique” of venues were supported by the national arts agency and said Ms Sturgeon’s statement was “extremely sad”.

The Scottish government said it had acted quickly to protect the arts. “We welcomed the UK government’s recognition of the value of culture and we are pleased they listened to our calls to use their significant borrowing powers to deliver this level of support,” it said.

“We have already committed to passing on all consequentials to the culture, events and heritage sectors and will set out our proposals soon, after discussions with those sectors and Creative Scotland.”

Where is the missing £74.5m?

I hope the Auditor General does his job and finds out where exactly allt eh corona money from Westminister has been spent, I suspect it has been used to cover up a whole host of pet projects and overspends that they dont want to talk about.

[Northern Lights]

Today's Times comment piece after the GERS

Coronavirus makes Scottish independence even more costly
SNP ministers may well be having sleepless nights as they ponder the rising deficit and the risks to public services
Jim Gallagher
Thursday August 27 2020, 12.01am, The Times
Share
Save
‘Do they wake up sweating in the night?” wondered the journalist John Lloyd about SNP ministers contemplating the economic reality of the independence they advocate. If so, they face another sleepless week.

Once a year, the Scottish government’s own statisticians set out in the Gers (Government Expenditure and Revenue Scotland) statistical report the cold facts about Scottish public spending and tax income. Good news and bad. Good news: Scotland gets a lot more public services than its tax income pays for. The bad news: that’s why we run a stonking government deficit. Last year it was just over £15 billion, around 8.5 per cent of GDP, compared with 2.5 per cent for the UK as a whole. A bit worse than the year before, mainly because oil revenues have dropped again.

The deficit numbers for the year we’re now in will be staggering, given the huge costs of Covid-19. Scotland’s will again be worse. If the UK borrows 20 per cent of GDP, as seems quite likely, Scotland’s deficit will be over 25 per cent. Scotland having a bigger deficit isn’t a problem while we’re in the UK. The UK is a fiscal union, sharing tax resources through “fiscal transfers”. These mostly make up for weak tax income, as in Wales, but in Scotland they support higher public spending.

Fair does, you might say, as back in the 1980s North Sea oil revenues supported UK spending. But now that oil revenues are marginal, those fiscal transfers really matter: last year they amounted to nearly £11 billion, a quarter of the Scottish parliament’s budget. In the present year they could be as big as its whole budget.

This fiscal gap isn’t a problem for nationalist zealots. Either it’s all lies, made up by a scheming Treasury, who conceal entire oilfields, or whole streams of tax revenue. Or for others it can all be wished away by ignoring inherited debt, abolishing Trident, and printing as many new Scottish pounds as needed to fill the gap.

But it is a problem for nationalist ministers. After more than a decade in government they are housetrained to some fiscal realities. That’s why Gers figures were the basis for the 2014 independence white paper. Back then, oil was going to be the answer. It was largely imaginary, and is now only a tenth of what they predicted. In 2018, the SNP’s growth commission used Gers as its starting point too. Its answer was not oil, but yet more borrowing until something turned up. That’s why nationalist veterans like Alex Neil are now calling for a new economic plan for independence.

The fiscal challenges an independent Scotland would face are closely linked to the other unanswered economic questions which trouble the likes of Mr Neil: currency and trade. The current SNP position is that Scotland would use another country’s currency, the UK pound, outside of a monetary union. Not only would Scotland’s “central bank” have no control over monetary policy, it couldn’t create money but would have to assemble the cash to keep the economy turning over. Scotland’s government would have to borrow in a foreign currency, and then find the hard cash to pay it back. But with the Scottish economy running an overall current deficit, cash would be flowing out of the country. This would swiftly result in a currency crisis. The alternative of creating a new Scottish pound straight away is more logical, though very hard to do. Ask Greece. As experts like Professor Ronald MacDonald have pointed out, if it could be launched, a new currency is liable to devaluation of 20-30 per cent to reflect the same economic realities, with immediate effects on living standards.

Hence maybe those sleepless nights for SNP ministers. With experience in government of managing public spending, they may wonder, what if we really did get independence? We’d have to make those billions of spending cuts. We’d be saying no to people demanding their health services, or their pensions. And they must wonder about currency: what will we really do? What will that mean for Scotland, and for us? And, just maybe, those sleepless nights underlie the simmering tensions between nationalist zealots and their more cautious leader.

For the rest of us, it’s important to understand what Gers does not mean: Scotland isn’t “too wee, too poor” to become independent. Scotland is a small country, but quite well off, though over the past ten years or so our economy has declined relative to the UK — after many decades of getting relatively stronger. What Gers means is that sharing resources inside the UK works greatly to Scotland’s advantage.

This year, however, Covid changes the context radically. The UK government is borrowing unprecedented amounts to pay the wages of 900,000 Scots on furlough. UK government-backed loans are keeping businesses going. Much more investment will be needed to restart the economy. All this depends on one thing: government ability to borrow at low interest rates. The takeaway message from Gers yet again is how much harder that would be for an independent Scotland. The bigger message is that in our worst peacetime economic crisis, we urgently need governments working in tandem. Not threatening to pull apart, but rebuilding together.

Kate Forbes defence was pretty much give us more powers and it will be different. How exactly young lady, what are you going to different then from now?

Absolutely clueless but not surprising as she has zero experience or training to be able to do this job, she is clearly bright but totally out of her depth.

[Blackmac]

Today's Times comment piece after the GERS

Coronavirus makes Scottish independence even more costly
SNP ministers may well be having sleepless nights as they ponder the rising deficit and the risks to public services
Jim Gallagher
Thursday August 27 2020, 12.01am, The Times
Share
Save
‘Do they wake up sweating in the night?” wondered the journalist John Lloyd about SNP ministers contemplating the economic reality of the independence they advocate. If so, they face another sleepless week.

Once a year, the Scottish government’s own statisticians set out in the Gers (Government Expenditure and Revenue Scotland) statistical report the cold facts about Scottish public spending and tax income. Good news and bad. Good news: Scotland gets a lot more public services than its tax income pays for. The bad news: that’s why we run a stonking government deficit. Last year it was just over £15 billion, around 8.5 per cent of GDP, compared with 2.5 per cent for the UK as a whole. A bit worse than the year before, mainly because oil revenues have dropped again.

The deficit numbers for the year we’re now in will be staggering, given the huge costs of Covid-19. Scotland’s will again be worse. If the UK borrows 20 per cent of GDP, as seems quite likely, Scotland’s deficit will be over 25 per cent. Scotland having a bigger deficit isn’t a problem while we’re in the UK. The UK is a fiscal union, sharing tax resources through “fiscal transfers”. These mostly make up for weak tax income, as in Wales, but in Scotland they support higher public spending.

Fair does, you might say, as back in the 1980s North Sea oil revenues supported UK spending. But now that oil revenues are marginal, those fiscal transfers really matter: last year they amounted to nearly £11 billion, a quarter of the Scottish parliament’s budget. In the present year they could be as big as its whole budget.

This fiscal gap isn’t a problem for nationalist zealots. Either it’s all lies, made up by a scheming Treasury, who conceal entire oilfields, or whole streams of tax revenue. Or for others it can all be wished away by ignoring inherited debt, abolishing Trident, and printing as many new Scottish pounds as needed to fill the gap.

But it is a problem for nationalist ministers. After more than a decade in government they are housetrained to some fiscal realities. That’s why Gers figures were the basis for the 2014 independence white paper. Back then, oil was going to be the answer. It was largely imaginary, and is now only a tenth of what they predicted. In 2018, the SNP’s growth commission used Gers as its starting point too. Its answer was not oil, but yet more borrowing until something turned up. That’s why nationalist veterans like Alex Neil are now calling for a new economic plan for independence.

The fiscal challenges an independent Scotland would face are closely linked to the other unanswered economic questions which trouble the likes of Mr Neil: currency and trade. The current SNP position is that Scotland would use another country’s currency, the UK pound, outside of a monetary union. Not only would Scotland’s “central bank” have no control over monetary policy, it couldn’t create money but would have to assemble the cash to keep the economy turning over. Scotland’s government would have to borrow in a foreign currency, and then find the hard cash to pay it back. But with the Scottish economy running an overall current deficit, cash would be flowing out of the country. This would swiftly result in a currency crisis. The alternative of creating a new Scottish pound straight away is more logical, though very hard to do. Ask Greece. As experts like Professor Ronald MacDonald have pointed out, if it could be launched, a new currency is liable to devaluation of 20-30 per cent to reflect the same economic realities, with immediate effects on living standards.

Hence maybe those sleepless nights for SNP ministers. With experience in government of managing public spending, they may wonder, what if we really did get independence? We’d have to make those billions of spending cuts. We’d be saying no to people demanding their health services, or their pensions. And they must wonder about currency: what will we really do? What will that mean for Scotland, and for us? And, just maybe, those sleepless nights underlie the simmering tensions between nationalist zealots and their more cautious leader.

For the rest of us, it’s important to understand what Gers does not mean: Scotland isn’t “too wee, too poor” to become independent. Scotland is a small country, but quite well off, though over the past ten years or so our economy has declined relative to the UK — after many decades of getting relatively stronger. What Gers means is that sharing resources inside the UK works greatly to Scotland’s advantage.

This year, however, Covid changes the context radically. The UK government is borrowing unprecedented amounts to pay the wages of 900,000 Scots on furlough. UK government-backed loans are keeping businesses going. Much more investment will be needed to restart the economy. All this depends on one thing: government ability to borrow at low interest rates. The takeaway message from Gers yet again is how much harder that would be for an independent Scotland. The bigger message is that in our worst peacetime economic crisis, we urgently need governments working in tandem. Not threatening to pull apart, but rebuilding together.

Kate Forbes defence was pretty much give us more powers and it will be different. How exactly young lady, what are you going to different then from now?

Absolutely clueless but not surprising as she has zero experience or training to be able to do this job, she is clearly bright but totally out of her depth.

The problem is that no one seemed to pose that question. It's outrageous she was able to spout that pish without being properly taken to task.

[Caley_Red]

Any pro-Sturgeon people fancy taking on the GERS stats? Sunlit uplands await, surely?

Being flippant, what differentiates 'nasty Tory austerity' from Nicola's much deeper and more swingeing public expenditure cuts? Is it the sentiment?

[TheNatalShark]

[Blackmac]

Any pro-Sturgeon people fancy taking on the GERS stats? Sunlit uplands await, surely?

Being flippant, what differentiates 'nasty Tory austerity' from Nicola's much deeper and more swingeing public expenditure cuts? Is it the sentiment?

There was a belter of an article doing the rounds on social media from an Independence supporting economist. Apparantly the deficit is down to the fact that a lot of UK spending, that doesn't benefit Scotland in any way, is added to the Scottish figures. When we are independent, Scotland's "natural wealth", oil, whisky and tourism will see us become one of the richest countries in Europe.

[Caley_Red]

Any pro-Sturgeon people fancy taking on the GERS stats? Sunlit uplands await, surely?

Being flippant, what differentiates 'nasty Tory austerity' from Nicola's much deeper and more swingeing public expenditure cuts? Is it the sentiment?

There was a belter of an article doing the rounds on social media from an Independence supporting economist. Apparantly the deficit is down to the fact that a lot of UK spending, that doesn't benefit Scotland in any way, is added to the Scottish figures. When we are independent, Scotland's "natural wealth", oil, whisky and tourism will see us become one of the richest countries in Europe.

I haven't got any social media but would be interested to see it, post it if you find it please.

[Blackmac]

Any pro-Sturgeon people fancy taking on the GERS stats? Sunlit uplands await, surely?

Being flippant, what differentiates 'nasty Tory austerity' from Nicola's much deeper and more swingeing public expenditure cuts? Is it the sentiment?

There was a belter of an article doing the rounds on social media from an Independence supporting economist. Apparantly the deficit is down to the fact that a lot of UK spending, that doesn't benefit Scotland in any way, is added to the Scottish figures. When we are independent, Scotland's "natural wealth", oil, whisky and tourism will see us become one of the richest countries in Europe.

I haven't got any social media but would be interested to see it, post it if you find it please.

I'm crap at that sort of thing. Its a "BusinessforScotland" article written by a Gordon McIntyre-Kemp.

[lorcanoworms]

Probably find it here.
https://www.businessforscotland.com/new ... ependence/

[Smutley]

There's that. Also there's misallocation of revenue, e.g. exports via container ports (of which there is little capacity in Scotland).

GERS was invented by Ian Lang, with an express remit of undermining the case for independence.

[Tichtheid]

Why UK’s oil and gas revenues are dwarfed by Norway’s

https://www.businessforscotland.com/uks ... d-norways/

[Bimbowomxn]

There's that. Also there's misallocation of revenue, e.g. exports via container ports (of which there is little capacity in Scotland).

GERS was invented by Ian Lang, with an express remit of undermining the case for independence.

It’s a surprise that GERs was used so much by the SNP in the last independence referendum in that case.

[Tichtheid]

There's that. Also there's misallocation of revenue, e.g. exports via container ports (of which there is little capacity in Scotland).

GERS was invented by Ian Lang, with an express remit of undermining the case for independence.

There's also weirdly allocated things in GERS, a capital spend though PFI in Scotland is counted as spend there, but the recipient of the repayments is noted as being in the City of London, boosting London's surplus.

This is true for all over the UK

[Tichtheid]

It does make you wonder, if GERS is accurate and Scotland really does run a deficit of a bit over £15Bn, compared to the overall UK surplus of just under a billion quid, why are the UK-wide parties so desperate to keep Scotland in the union?

[Northern Lights]

There's that. Also there's misallocation of revenue, e.g. exports via container ports (of which there is little capacity in Scotland).

GERS was invented by Ian Lang, with an express remit of undermining the case for independence.

Where are you getting your misallocation of container port revenue from? They do their best to try and take account of all of this as you dont actually get income from exporting as such, it comes from the corporation tax receipts and tax receipts through employment that is created through successfully building exports which in turn builds stronger companies and employment.

It is pulled together by independent statisticians on behalf of the Scottish Government with the specific aim of being free from political bias. Trying to undermine this report as a lot of seperatists try to do is pretty low to be honest as it is widely conceded by the vast majority as the starting place for a discussion on how we would fair as an independent country.

The simple fact is that there is going to have to be significant spending cuts and some tax rises to bridge the gap, what needs to be asked is around the specifics of what exactly do they plan to do to balance our budget or certainly get it within 3% of deficit to our gdp which it is broadly agreed internationally where countries need to be in the long term and definitely what is needed for EU membership as we will be obliged as a new member to adopt the Euro. My take is that the axe will need to fall much harder on the spending side than the tax rise side as it will become self-defeating to try and ratchet up more income from the tax side without strangling an already battered economy.

And to give context to the £15bn deficit we are currently running, that is larger than our entire health budget, so do we just get rid of the NHS in Scotland to bridge this gap...

[Jock42]

And to give context to the £15bn deficit we are currently running, that is larger than our entire health budget, so do we just get rid of the NHS in Scotland to bridge this gap...

Woah there. Someone better be making sure my wage is guaranteed, I can't buy beer with claps.

[Biffer]

In the same way that I never believed the land of milk and honey view of some on the ultra nationalist side, I don't believe the deficit of an indy Scotland would be as stated in GERS. Tichtheid has outlined a couple of flaws, there will also be less spending on defence, and the question of interest payments on debt is very much dependent on the way the UK breaks up. As alluded to above, there's a lot of business activity that takes place in Scotland which gets reported through an HQ elsewhere; this under reports the projection of corporation tax (in my own sector, 18% of employees are recognised as working in Scotland but only 1% of business activity is reported as taking place here because of HQs in London). Another area where the spend may be projected as higher than reality is in state pensions as Scotland's lower life expectancy means per head spending is actually (regrettably) lower in Scotland.So I'm aware there would be a deficit, the scale is question.

A deficit of around 3% is acceptable, and in many ways is viewed as the more sound approach in average economic times, according to the kind of neoclassical macroeconomics followed by the centre and the right for the last 30-40 years. I don't think we'd be quite at that point so some tax rises would be needed but I don't think they'd be in any way based on the kind of deficit reported in GERS.

Edit to add - in the same way that I treat ultranationalists with disdain and don't engage with them, I'm not going to engage with any frothing uberunionists who engage in hyperbolic rants. Not to name anyone in particular but you'll know who you are by me just ignoring you.