The Scottish Politics Thread

[Northern Lights]

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

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

Do you have any remotely independant sources as opposed to that spoofer Gordon MacIntyre-Kemp who is little more than a propoganda machine?

You can't seriously consider the stuff that comes out of the BfS, it is just nonsense.

The GERS figures are widely regarded, even by senior politicians in the SNP as close as a true picture we will get of what we would look like if independent. There are of course assumptions made as they cant actually count to the last pound exactly what things would look like but they are not seriously disputed. It has been the starting place for the Growth Report done by Wilson and the starting place for any serious discussion on how we would look going forward. Rather than dispute them, we need answers on how we actually close the gap.

What i find more interesting is that there appears to be zero oversight on what is going on with the money that is coming North during the huge spend because of the pandemic. Where has the missing £75m for creative arts gone? This sort of stuff is not able to be done from Westminster as the Treasury select committee keep a very close eye on things like this, we dont have anyone properly looking into this and that shouldnt matter which party is in power, oversight of what is going on with our money is desperately needed.

[Northern Lights]

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.

Well quite. We could go to an insurance based system like the US, I'm sure that will go down well with all the voters.

It was more to give people an idea of the scale of the deficit, it isnt a rounding error. Billions turn into trillions these days and it sometimes gets lost on what these sums of money look like.

[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.

Well quite. We could go to an insurance based system like the US, I'm sure that will go down well with all the voters.

It was more to give people an idea of the scale of the deficit, it isnt a rounding error. Billions turn into trillions these days and it sometimes gets lost on what these sums of money look like.

I know mate. I'm actually in favour of reforming the NHS, not to the extent of the yanks where a Health Care Professional has to pay 5 grand for antivirals after a needle stick injury or people have to go without chemo for cancer due to expense.

[Northern Lights]

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

Well quite. We could go to an insurance based system like the US, I'm sure that will go down well with all the voters.

It was more to give people an idea of the scale of the deficit, it isnt a rounding error. Billions turn into trillions these days and it sometimes gets lost on what these sums of money look like.

I know mate. I'm actually in favour of reforming the NHS, not to the extent of the yanks where a Health Care Professional has to pay 5 grand for antivirals after a needle stick injury or people have to go without chemo for cancer due to expense.

Just so you know, my claps were specifically for you OJ

Not that it will help you buy a beer but at some point in the future i hope i get a chance to buy you one at a cabal.

[Tichtheid]

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

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

Do you have any remotely independant sources as opposed to that spoofer Gordon MacIntyre-Kemp who is little more than a propoganda machine?

You can't seriously consider the stuff that comes out of the BfS, it is just nonsense.

The sources are on the graphics in that piece -

Norsk Petroleum, Oil and Gas Authority.

Shell - Reports on Payments to Governments 2015 and 2016

BP - Reports on Payments to Governments 2015 and 2016

[Jock42]

Well quite. We could go to an insurance based system like the US, I'm sure that will go down well with all the voters.

It was more to give people an idea of the scale of the deficit, it isnt a rounding error. Billions turn into trillions these days and it sometimes gets lost on what these sums of money look like.

I know mate. I'm actually in favour of reforming the NHS, not to the extent of the yanks where a Health Care Professional has to pay 5 grand for antivirals after a needle stick injury or people have to go without chemo for cancer due to expense.

Just so you know, my claps were specifically for you OJ

Not that it will help you buy a beer but at some point in the future i hope i get a chance to buy you one at a cabal.

I'm blushing.

[Tichtheid]

The UK government paid Shell $123m in 2015, new figures reveal. Of 24 countries where Shell reported, the UK was the only net contributor to the oil and gas major.



https://www.carbonbrief.org/uk-taxpayer ... 0in%202015.


edit, here is the latest report from Shell

https://www.shell.com/sustainability/tr ... s-2019.pdf

[Northern Lights]

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

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

Do you have any remotely independant sources as opposed to that spoofer Gordon MacIntyre-Kemp who is little more than a propoganda machine?

You can't seriously consider the stuff that comes out of the BfS, it is just nonsense.

The sources are on the graphics in that piece -

Norsk Petroleum, Oil and Gas Authority.

Shell - Reports on Payments to Governments 2015 and 2016

BP - Reports on Payments to Governments 2015 and 2016

Which is not to do with each governments tax take on the sector. Shell and BP have been offloading assets in the North Sea for the last decade or so with the field life extension smaller companies wading into the sector as the fields are old and near end of life, that is why North Sea tax receipts have fallen from £11bn to less than a billion, well that and the dramatic drop in the oil price.

The sources are cherry picked nonsense, he has no credibility and writing up puff pieces to try and explain away where we are does not help further the discussion.

It isnt even the revenue side of the equation that is the problem.

We are raising £308 less per person than the rest of the UK which broadly would be about right given we dont have the South East economy in Scotland with much higher wages to bolster the tax receipts and everything that goes with having one of the world's mega financial centres at the heart of it. This figure broadly looks about right to anyone with their head screwed on.

It is the expenditure side, where we are spending an enormous £1,633 per person more in Scotland than the rest of the UK. Now for sure we might not have a military, which keeps us out of NATO and leave us limited in our capacity to defend our resources but doing this will not get close to bridging the gap that needs sorted. What are we going to spend less on, we simply wont be able to grow our tax receipts to cover our expenditure unless we are in fantasyland, what are we going to do differently to where we are today.

Things for sure arent perfect but it is clear that at the moment, we are getting a bloody good deal. Over the life of a country our resources whether that is wind, coast line etc etc may well swing us back into being contributors to the UK but as it stands today we arent, swings and roundabouts over the life of a nation.

[Biffer]

The UK government paid Shell $123m in 2015, new figures reveal. Of 24 countries where Shell reported, the UK was the only net contributor to the oil and gas major.



https://www.carbonbrief.org/uk-taxpayer ... 0in%202015.


edit, here is the latest report from Shell

https://www.shell.com/sustainability/tr ... s-2019.pdf

Yeah I've seen multiple things over the last few years, when the oil price has been low, that the UK is the only country subsidising the big producers.

From memory, Norway has extracted roughly the same amount of oil from roughly the same geological and environmental conditions, but has received about 40% more income into its national government. in cash terms that's about $400billion over thirty years or so.

Edit - it's actually worse than I remember according to this analysis - not a Scottish nationalist analysis or even a Scottish analysis

https://resourcegovernance.org/blog/did ... U.K.%20has.

[Northern Lights]

The UK government paid Shell $123m in 2015, new figures reveal. Of 24 countries where Shell reported, the UK was the only net contributor to the oil and gas major.



https://www.carbonbrief.org/uk-taxpayer ... 0in%202015.


edit, here is the latest report from Shell

https://www.shell.com/sustainability/tr ... s-2019.pdf

And yet Shell remains headquarted with huge offices in Aberdeen and London (not to mention elsewhere) creating thousands of jobs supporting projects across the world even though its historic Brent assets are now cost GB money. Picking figures in isolation with respect to individual companies doesnt really move the discussion forward.

[Tichtheid]

And yet Shell remains headquarted with huge offices in Aberdeen and London (not to mention elsewhere) creating thousands of jobs supporting projects across the world even though its historic Brent assets are now cost GB money. Picking figures in isolation with respect to individual companies doesnt really move the discussion forward.

You asked for sources, I provided them.

[Biffer]

The UK government paid Shell $123m in 2015, new figures reveal. Of 24 countries where Shell reported, the UK was the only net contributor to the oil and gas major.



https://www.carbonbrief.org/uk-taxpayer ... 0in%202015.


edit, here is the latest report from Shell

https://www.shell.com/sustainability/tr ... s-2019.pdf

And yet Shell remains headquarted with huge offices in Aberdeen and London (not to mention elsewhere) creating thousands of jobs supporting projects across the world even though its historic Brent assets are now cost GB money. Picking figures in isolation with respect to individual companies doesnt really move the discussion forward.

You're surprised they have big offices in the country that subsidises their extraction activities to a greater extent than the others? The reason they cost us money is because of the governance approach of UK government.

[Tichtheid]

You're surprised they have big offices in the country that subsidises their extraction activities to a greater extent than the others? The reason they cost us money is because of the governance approach of UK government.

Well, exactly, given a change of policy, I wonder if the companies will choose less money by going over to the model used by almost every other government they deal with, or no money by ceasing extraction altogether?

[tc27]

I have yet to see a valid criticism of GERS that stands up to scrutiny or cant be dismissed by simply checking the methodology.

Stuff like corp tax and VAT whilst being impossible to precisely measure is estimated as accurately as possible and is based on taxable activity in Scotland not on head office location - its possible they are a few million out either way in terms of revenue but not to the extent it significantly alter the overall picture

Its also telling the arguments the SNP have wheeled out against GERs are essentially that it shows the UK has big regional inequality and (applies some absurd reasoning) this supports Independence as the logical answer - they are not trying to dispute the general accuracy of the figures.

[Northern Lights]

The UK government paid Shell $123m in 2015, new figures reveal. Of 24 countries where Shell reported, the UK was the only net contributor to the oil and gas major.



https://www.carbonbrief.org/uk-taxpayer ... 0in%202015.


edit, here is the latest report from Shell

https://www.shell.com/sustainability/tr ... s-2019.pdf

And yet Shell remains headquarted with huge offices in Aberdeen and London (not to mention elsewhere) creating thousands of jobs supporting projects across the world even though its historic Brent assets are now cost GB money. Picking figures in isolation with respect to individual companies doesnt really move the discussion forward.

You're surprised they have big offices in the country that subsidises their extraction activities to a greater extent than the others? The reason they cost us money is because of the governance approach of UK government.

Given the biggest reason why our tax revenues differ between Norway and the UK comes down to timing of when the fields have come on line, great 20:20 hindisght but that is not how you go about developing oil fields and that Shell is Anglo Dutch, I seriously doubt their HQ would be based in Norway. It is just yet more cherry picking of individual data sets to try and divert the argument away from the fact that there are huge questions to be answered on how we close the Scottish deficit and I've yet to see any reasonable answer on what separatists will do differently.

[Biffer]

According to LN everything is either cherry picking or propaganda. No comment on the report from Resource Governance. No doubt he'll claim they're some leftist propaganda agency.

[Smutley]

What he said. In general, the revenue side of things is harder to estimate, and involves more guesswork than the spending side.

The aim of those figures in the beginning was to undermine the idea that Scotland was financially viable as a separate entity. Doesn't matter if those executing the method are independent or not, the method will still tend to produce the result it was designed to.

I'm not denying there will be a cost to independence, and cuts in spending as a result. I just don't believe it will be as bad as is made out by GERS. FWIW I've always thought that, even when I was against independence (pre 2014).

[Biffer]

I also find that when you see people constantly shouting 'propaganda', 'kool-aid', and a lot of the other attack dog language is reflective of the Trump style public debate. There's guilt in this area on both sides and I apologise to anyone if I've used it before but I do try to recognise when I've done it and I make an effort to not go down those lines. It'd be a much more civilised debate if we all did.

[Caley_Red]

Biffer, you are free to ignore me- that's your prerogative and my previous post was a little churlish. However, I am no uber unionist ideologue, I dont start from a position and select facts to suit my case, I arrived at my position because the facts objectively support it: Independence would severely damage the economy, the SNP are an illiberal party under sturgeon (as evidenced by the raft of oppressive laws they've attempted to pass), their handling of devolved matters has caused severe degradation to areas like education.

I also happen to think that their policy making and governance has made Scotland a worse place to live and work. Given the nature of my work and education, I'm fortunate to be in a position where I have an advanced understanding of economic policy, particularly around central banking and statistics hence, I have a very bleak view of the SNP's proposals for an independent Scotland. Please don't equate me with deranged and extremist nationalists but feel free to engage me on any of the points I've made.

[tc27]

What he said. In general, the revenue side of things is harder to estimate, and involves more guesswork than the spending side.

The aim of those figures in the beginning was to undermine the idea that Scotland was financially viable as a separate entity. Doesn't matter if those executing the method are independent or not, the method will still tend to produce the result it was designed to.

I'm not denying there will be a cost to independence, and cuts in spending as a result. I just don't believe it will be as bad as is made out by GERS. FWIW I've always thought that, even when I was against independence (pre 2014).

With respect that's has not being the case for a long time and it takes a level of cognitive dissonance to think civil servants working under a nationalist led government have being producing deliberately prejudiced data to undermine Scotlands fiscal position (which the SNP used as the basis for the 2014 White paper!)

Also it stands to reason if there was any scope for a more positive version of GERS the SNP would have produced it.


The methodology is open, gets refined every year and has being signed off my every relevant body and is backed by economists. (Including the pro independence Cutherberts).

[Biffer]

Biffer, you are free to ignore me- that's your prerogative and my previous post was a little churlish. However, I am no uber unionist ideologue, I dont start from a position and select facts to suit my case, I arrived at my position because the facts objectively support it: Independence would severely damage the economy, the SNP are an illiberal party under sturgeon (as evidenced by the raft of oppressive laws they've attempted to pass), their handling of devolved matters has caused severe degradation to areas like education.

I also happen to think that their policy making and governance has made Scotland a worse place to live and work. Given the nature of my work and education, I'm fortunate to be in a position where I have an advanced understanding of economic policy, particularly around central banking and statistics hence, I have a very bleak view of the SNP's proposals for an independent Scotland. Please don't equate me with deranged and extremist nationalists but feel free to engage me on any of the points I've made.

If I'm honest, I wasn't really referring to you

We're all guilty of getting overly antagonistic on this every now and again, I genuinely try not to. But there are some on each side who are thoroughly ignorable due to various levels of frothing, whether it's Saltire or Union Flag tinged spittle involved.

[Biffer]

Actually, I just wandered into the 2 trillion deficit thread and realised we're actually still being quite civilised, so as you were.

[Northern Lights]

According to LN everything is either cherry picking or propaganda. No comment on the report from Resource Governance. No doubt he'll claim they're some leftist propaganda agency.

No what i said was that picking one or two companies out was cherry -picking, which it is. Whether we could have dealt with oil bonanza better is absolutely open to scrutiny, we could have on the face of the evidence of other comparable countries, we could have also done a lot worse when looking to Nigeria or Venezuela to name but two. The problem going forward though is that this resource is no longer there or more accurately will not be what it once was, it is going and it's relevance to the debate on how we fund ourselves going forward is diminishing.

What he said. In general, the revenue side of things is harder to estimate, and involves more guesswork than the spending side.

The aim of those figures in the beginning was to undermine the idea that Scotland was financially viable as a separate entity. Doesn't matter if those executing the method are independent or not, the method will still tend to produce the result it was designed to.

I'm not denying there will be a cost to independence, and cuts in spending as a result. I just don't believe it will be as bad as is made out by GERS. FWIW I've always thought that, even when I was against independence (pre 2014).

To an extent, it is more that on the face of the revenue per person it looks broadly right when you strip out the SE of England economy. London like or not is a mega city that disproportionately generates a vast amount of tax revenue for the UK, by taking London out of the equation which we do as it is not in Scotland, for me the revenue numbers are roughly about right, you could argue over a million here or there but it's not game changing.

By far the biggest contributor to our deficit is our spending, what are we going to cut? I have yet to see anything concrete on answering this so their plans post independence lack any credibility.

[Line6 HXFX]

Its funny that after 300 years of English rule, Scotland is in such a state that not even Europe (a federation that has helped many former Soviet post colonial nations) can help them.

That Scotland would actually have been better off under Soviet control than under the control of the UK government, so hopeless is its situation now.
It is beyond even EU help

So it should stay in the UK.

Talk about punching your wife in the face and telling her "look honey you cannot leave me, no one is going to employ you looking like that".

[Line6 HXFX]

Btw, you have to understand that Northern Lights spent the referendum last time, pretending to be open minded about Scotland leaving the EU, and he became convinced mainly because he was the most disingenuous twat I have ever fucking seen before or since.

[tc27]

Its funny that after 300 years of English rule, Scotland is in such a state that not even Europe (a federation that has helped many former Soviet post colonial nations) can help them.

That Scotland would actually have been better off under Soviet control than under the control of the UK government, so hopeless is its situation now.
It is beyond even EU help

So it should stay in the UK.

Talk about punching your wife in the face and telling her "look honey you cannot leave me, no one is going to employ you looking like that".

Such a f*cked up viewpoint. I mean to even compare Scotland to former Soviet states is just so historically illiterate.

Its normal for spending to be pooled and shared within nations. London generates obscene amounts of tax income because its one the worlds most important cities and a finical hub. Getting the benefit of this distributed across the country is a good healthy thing and if you are determined to see it though a nationalist filter just view it as pay back fro oil revenues in the 70s and 80s.

If Scotland becomes an independent state tax income from Aberdeen will be used to provide services in East Renthrewshire - it doesnt mean the people in Aberdeen are basically an abusive partner to those in other parts of Scotland.

Grow up.

[Northern Lights]

Btw, you have to understand that Northern Lights spent the referendum last time, pretending to be open minded about Scotland leaving the EU, and he became convinced mainly because he was the most disingenuous twat I have ever fucking seen before or since.

And who are you? You seem absolutely charming.

We haven’t had a referendum on Scotland leaving the EU.

[MoreOrLess]

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

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

This isn't really a like-for-like comparison considering Norways boe/yr is greater than the UKs.

Norway have also developed almost all of the monster fields in the North Sea, particularly recently. Granted the UK has Clair and a 45 year old Forties system, but Statfjord, Ekofisk, Oseberg etc. are all massive, plus Johan Sverdrup just starting and Mariner coming online too.

On top of that, the cost of producing in the UK is twice as high as it is in Norway. The UK can barely break even at $40/bbl. Given that its admirable we can make any money from O&G at the moment.

[Chrysoprase]

And who are you? You seem absolutely charming.

Grow up.

It's Refry

[MoreOrLess]

The UK government paid Shell $123m in 2015, new figures reveal. Of 24 countries where Shell reported, the UK was the only net contributor to the oil and gas major.



https://www.carbonbrief.org/uk-taxpayer ... 0in%202015.


edit, here is the latest report from Shell

https://www.shell.com/sustainability/tr ... s-2019.pdf

Yeah I've seen multiple things over the last few years, when the oil price has been low, that the UK is the only country subsidising the big producers.

From memory, Norway has extracted roughly the same amount of oil from roughly the same geological and environmental conditions, but has received about 40% more income into its national government. in cash terms that's about $400billion over thirty years or so.

Edit - it's actually worse than I remember according to this analysis - not a Scottish nationalist analysis or even a Scottish analysis

https://resourcegovernance.org/blog/did ... U.K.%20has.

The cost of production plays a big part in that analysis but isn't really covered.

Having a privatised O&G industry in the UK essentially created a racket amongst service companies with only a handful of players in each discipline. That's make the UK quite a low value option for offshore engineering and technology.

Whilst this is probably detrimental in the long run, it's had a much larger secondary economic effect than you'd find in Norway.

And advocates of a Norway style approach are more than welcome to buy all the £10 pints

[Dogbert]

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

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

This isn't really a like-for-like comparison considering Norways boe/yr is greater than the UKs.

Norway have also developed almost all of the monster fields in the North Sea, particularly recently. Granted the UK has Clair and a 45 year old Forties system, but Statfjord, Ekofisk, Oseberg etc. are all massive, plus Johan Sverdrup just starting and Mariner coming online too.

On top of that, the cost of producing in the UK is twice as high as it is in Norway. The UK can barely break even at $40/bbl. Given that its admirable we can make any money from O&G at the moment.

Chrysaor , which is currently the largest producer in the UK Sector of the North Sea is breaking even at $14 / barrel , and they have already hedged the next two years production at over $50

[Northern Lights]

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

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

This isn't really a like-for-like comparison considering Norways boe/yr is greater than the UKs.

Norway have also developed almost all of the monster fields in the North Sea, particularly recently. Granted the UK has Clair and a 45 year old Forties system, but Statfjord, Ekofisk, Oseberg etc. are all massive, plus Johan Sverdrup just starting and Mariner coming online too.

On top of that, the cost of producing in the UK is twice as high as it is in Norway. The UK can barely break even at $40/bbl. Given that its admirable we can make any money from O&G at the moment.

Chrysaor , which is currently the largest producer in the UK Sector of the North Sea is breaking even at $14 / barrel , and they have already hedged the next two years production at over $50

That’s production cost as I understand it and does not include decommissioning, which is substantial.

[Tichtheid]

Norway's projected income from the North Sea this year is around £8.5Bn, down from the ball park of £20Bn last year, this is due to the fall in prices and Covid.
https://www.norskpetroleum.no/en/econom ... -revenues/

Even if we estimate Scotland's share as being around half of the amount Norway produces, we should see a much better return than we currently get under the ludicrous set up we have.

You don't have to go the Full Norway, just as the argument against solar power in Scotland is often shouted down because there is no way it can match the output of Torness Power Station - the point is you would seek to use solar as part of a portfolio of renewable resources along with wind, geothermal, wave and hydro - so an independent Scotland would be able to organise itself differently from the current arrangement, which if GERS is to be believed really isn't working.


I don't know about the veracity of the claims in the following article as it points out itself there there is no way to really check the figures in GERS http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2017 ... ce-debate/

I don't hold much truck with conspiracy theories, ie that "Westmonster" is deliberately undermining the case for independence, but I do wonder why the UK-wide parties are so keen to hang on the the economic basket case that is Scotland - they don't need Scottish votes, when Labour have won they would have done so without Scotland. Why did Labour change the boundaries stretching out into the North Sea when they came into power in '97? (this is apparently against international law, btw)

And then there is the McCrone Report https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCrone_report

[tc27]

I don't know about the veracity of the claims in the following article as it points out itself there there is no way to really check the figures in GERS http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2017 ... ce-debate/

In my opinion Richard Murphy is not a credible commentator on GERS..I think he just attaches himself to various outsider causes (he was also involved briefly with Corbyn) to gain a platform.

Kevin Hague forensically picks him apart here: https://chokkablog.blogspot.com/2017/04 ... tlier.html

But this video really is all you need to know about his knowledge:

But just consider this.

1. If Murhpy/GERS deniers are right the foundation of this believe must be that people in Scotland generate considerably more tax per head than people in the rest of the UK outside London...does this seem credible?

2. If there was absolutely any belief that GERS was wrong at a fundamental level then the SNP establishment would be shouting in from the rooftops. Instead they have gone down some strange route of declaring that GERS shows the Uk 'isnt working' because some areas are more lucrative for the taxman than others.

I don't hold much truck with conspiracy theories, ie that "Westmonster" is deliberately undermining the case for independence, but I do wonder why the UK-wide parties are so keen to hang on the the economic basket case that is Scotland - they don't need Scottish votes, when Labour have won they would have done so without Scotland. Why did Labour change the boundaries stretching out into the North Sea when they came into power in '97? (this is apparently against international law, btw)

And then there is the McCrone Report https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCrone_report
Top

The McChrone report is hardly relevant to anything today.

IE the 'why hang onto the basket case' line...I mean would you be in favor of the secession of parts of Scotland that don't contribute positively to public finances? If the answers no then just change Scotland for the UK and you have my argument.

[Tichtheid]

I can't seem to post a longish reply

[Tichtheid]

I don't know about the veracity of the claims in the following article as it points out itself there there is no way to really check the figures in GERS http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2017 ... ce-debate/

In my opinion Richard Murphy is not a credible commentator on GERS..I think he just attaches himself to various outsider causes (he was also involved briefly with Corbyn) to gain a platform.

Kevin Hague forensically picks him apart here: https://chokkablog.blogspot.com/2017/04 ... tlier.html

But this video really is all you need to know about his knowledge:

But just consider this.

1. If Murhpy/GERS deniers are right the foundation of this believe must be that people in Scotland generate considerably more tax per head than people in the rest of the UK outside London...does this seem credible?

2. If there was absolutely any belief that GERS was wrong at a fundamental level then the SNP establishment would be shouting in from the rooftops. Instead they have gone down some strange route of declaring that GERS shows the Uk 'isnt working' because some areas are more lucrative for the taxman than others.

I don't hold much truck with conspiracy theories, ie that "Westmonster" is deliberately undermining the case for independence, but I do wonder why the UK-wide parties are so keen to hang on the the economic basket case that is Scotland - they don't need Scottish votes, when Labour have won they would have done so without Scotland. Why did Labour change the boundaries stretching out into the North Sea when they came into power in '97? (this is apparently against international law, btw)

And then there is the McCrone Report https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCrone_report
Top

The McChrone report is hardly relevant to anything today.

IE the 'why hang onto the basket case' line...I mean would you be in favor of the secession of parts of Scotland that don't contribute positively to public finances? If the answers no then just change Scotland for the UK and you have my argument.

Then

Then there are tax revenues. That VAT point still stands. And the truth is Scottish Revenue are struggling to be sure who is resident in Scotland whilst on corporation tax there is no way of knowing where revenues are earned at present. And so on.

Again, I'm asking if this is true or not.

likewise

So we come to spending. The allocation of government spending to Scotland will be arbitrary: how much defence should it pay, for example? Or interest? The arbitrary areas will be too great for this number to really be reliable.

and

In which case what of Scottish imports and exports? Let's be blunt: no one has a clue what crosses the borders from Scotland to England and Northern Ireland. These numbers are literally made up in that case.

The point about McCrone and why it is relevant is about whether or not a government at Westminster will do what most of us would deem unthinkable, ie keep information from the public in order to undermine the move towards independence.


You ask

would you be in favor of the secession of parts of Scotland that don't contribute positively to public finances? If the answers no then just change Scotland for the UK and you have my argument.

The answer to that is that it's not all about money. The economy is vitally important, of course, but it's also about a small country taking charge of its own affairs, forging our own path, not being dragged down a road we didn't vote for.

As far as I'm aware, not one country has asked to be brought back under the "protection" of Britain once they had managed to secure their independence, but I'm open to correction.

Maybe Hong Kong would do so right enough, but that is a somewhat exceptional case, given their alternative.

[Tichtheid]

I've tried several times to post the first part of my reply, but it always comes back in an error message, I was asking about the first point in the link I gave, rather than attacking the source, I was asking about the substance of what he says

[tc27]

Then there are tax revenues. That VAT point still stands. And the truth is Scottish Revenue are struggling to be sure who is resident in Scotland whilst on corporation tax there is no way of knowing where revenues are earned at present. And so on.
Again, I'm asking if this is true or not.

This is not this years methodolgy (it get refined every year) which my Google-fu seems to be unable to find...but it basically answers this question:

https://www.gov.scot/binaries/content/d ... 017-18.pdf

VAT:

Methodology
The UK figure for total VAT revenues is taken from ONS’ database underlying the Public
Sector Finances. VAT revenue is then disaggregated into VAT paid by households,
businesses, government, and the housing sector.
Scotland’s share of UK net VAT revenues paid by households is estimated from the Living
Costs and Food Survey (LCF), formerly the Expenditure and Food Survey (EFS). Scotland’s
share of VAT paid by businesses and the housing sector is apportioned in line with GVA.
Scotland’s share of VAT paid by government is apportioned in line with government
expenditure. The weights of each sector are provided by HMRC, and are shown in the table
below

Corp Tax:

In general, GERS apportions a share of UK revenues from corporation taxes based on the
economic activity undertaken in Scotland and not the location of companies’ headquarters.
Public corporations’ and North Sea corporation tax revenues are excluded from the analysis
and are apportioned to Scotland separately.
Calculating Scottish corporation tax revenues is a two stage process. Firstly the UK figure for
total corporation tax is taken from ONS’ database underlying the Public Sector Finances. An
adjustment is then made to remove corporation tax payments from the North Sea sector.
The Scottish share of UK corporation tax (excluding North Sea) is taken from the ONS
Country and Regional Public Sector Finances publication.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/governme ... nce/articl
es/countryandregionalpublicsectorfinances/2016to2017
This is based on HMRC’s country level corporation tax receipts, from their publication, A
disaggregation of HMRC tax receipts between England, Wales, Scotland & Northern Ireland,
available from the link below. However, ONS adjust the cash figures published by HMRC to
an accruals basis.
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistic ... x-receipts

So we come to spending. The allocation of government spending to Scotland will be arbitrary: how much defence should it pay, for example? Or interest? The arbitrary areas will be too great for this number to really be reliable.
and.

Why is it arbitrary - the methodology again is pretty clear how this breaks down:

https://www.gov.scot/publications/gers- ... y-2017-18/


Taking your example - defence spending is a straight population share of the UK total (actually an area which Scotland probably benefits more than the rest of the UK from because of its bases and shipbuilding - but GERS does not account for this).

So its not confusing or unclear its just critics like Murphy appear not to even read it.

In which case what of Scottish imports and exports? Let's be blunt: no one has a clue what crosses the borders from Scotland to England and Northern Ireland. These numbers are literally made up in that case.

Why bother monitoring exports within a single market? Also in revenue terms its the profits of the companies that export goods that are of a concern and this is recorded.

The SG does infact survey exports - you can see that info here: https://www.gov.scot/publications/state ... 9/pages/3/

The point about McCrone and why it is relevant is about whether or not a government at Westminster will do what most of us would deem unthinkable, ie keep information from the public in order to undermine the move towards independence.

The idea that GERS is rigged by the UK government is without any basis (particularity as the Scottish government run by the SNP produces them). In 2014 GERS was the economic basis for the white paper.

As far as I'm aware, not one country has asked to be brought back under the "protection" of Britain once they had managed to secure their independence, but I'm open to correction.

Maybe Hong Kong would do so right enough, but that is a somewhat exceptional case, given their alternative.

Doesn't really answer my point..not sure why you threw this in.

Anyway Scotland is not a colony of the UK its actually part of the unitary state that is the UK.

[tc27]

I've tried several times to post the first part of my reply, but it always comes back in an error message, I was asking about the first point in the link I gave, rather than attacking the source, I was asking about the substance of what he says

Sorry about that I did link to a very long form refutation of Murphy.

In my opinion he's basically bluffing about GERS and that video is a good example.

[Tichtheid]

I've tried several times to post the first part of my reply, but it always comes back in an error message, I was asking about the first point in the link I gave, rather than attacking the source, I was asking about the substance of what he says

Sorry about that I did link to a very long form refutation of Murphy.

In my opinion he's basically bluffing about GERS and that video is a good example.

The video is a selective edit of his performance, the guy who posted it has other videos which don't hide his viewpoint. I'm not really interested in attacking sources, more whether or not there is any substance in what is said.