Independence - how would you vote?

[xbl]

We are pro-rata within the margin of error of the CDU's debt and deficit to GDP ratios. Every other economic indicator suggests we are at best fractionally better placed economically.

Yet again you've been using an awful lot of words to avoid admitting that yes, we are better off than in the CDU. Why do you play the role of the pathetic apologist on here?

[vikingTON]

We are pro-rata within the margin of error of the CDU's debt and deficit to GDP ratios.

Erm no.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-21684684

Scotland operated with a 2.3% deficit - one of the best figures in the developed world - while the bankrupt CDU ran up a 6% deficit.

I'll expect your humiliating, mewling apology in due course.

`

[xbl]

What exactly is the "pro-rata margin of error" anyway? Is there a number on it? And if we didn't have to pay for trident, would that push us outside it?

[Ad Lib]

Erm no.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-21684684

Scotland operated with a 2.3% deficit - one of the best figures in the developed world - while the bankrupt CDU ran up a 6% deficit.

I'll expect your humiliating, mewling apology in due course.

`

Assuming a geographical oil apportionment. I said pro-rata. Because the oil hasn't actually been split yet, nor is there an undertaking that it will be. I agree it should be, but it doesn't mean we're not running a significant structural deficit AT THE MOMENT essentially as bad as the UK's as a whole, albeit marginally better. Our total pro-rata debt figure is also significantly worse than many other European countries, meaning that we can afford to run less of a deficit than they can in the medium term.

What exactly is the "pro-rata margin of error" anyway? Is there a number on it? And if we didn't have to pay for trident, would that push us outside it?

By pro-rata apportionment of assets and liabilities (i.e. North Sea oil). Obviously if it were split geographically, the situation would change. But it's not yet, so it doesn't, and there is no confirmation that it will be split geographically.

[~~~]

I don't understand why the uk government is waiting until 2017 to have an in/out referendum on the EU

Why not just do it now, get it over and done with? Won't this cause a lot of uncertainty for businesses?

[Baxter Parp]

But it's not yet, so it doesn't, and there is no confirmation that it will be split geographically.

Apparently there's some other way of apportioning rights to a geographically distributed resource. Any other straws you'd like to clutch?

[NorthAyrshireKillie]

I don't understand why the uk government is waiting until 2017 to have an in/out referendum on the EU

Why not just do it now, get it over and done with? Won't this cause a lot of uncertainty for businesses?

Because they know they will lose

Europe is not a major concern for most people.

And they know it will help them in the next election

[xbl]

Assuming a geographical oil apportionment. I said pro-rata. Because the oil hasn't actually been split yet, nor is there an undertaking that it will be. I agree it should be, but it doesn't mean we're not running a significant structural deficit AT THE MOMENT essentially as bad as the UK's as a whole, albeit marginally better. Our total pro-rata debt figure is also significantly worse than many other European countries, meaning that we can afford to run less of a deficit than they can in the medium term.

By pro-rata apportionment of assets and liabilities (i.e. North Sea oil). Obviously if it were split geographically, the situation would change. But it's not yet, so it doesn't, and there is no confirmation that it will be split geographically.

So give me a number, what exactly is the "margin of error"? Does it have a value? A percentage?

[Ad Lib]

Apparently there's some other way of apportioning rights to a geographically distributed resource. Any other straws you'd like to clutch?

It could be allocated by a number of means, depending on the nature of the agreement reached by the respective negotiating teams. I've already said that geographical apportionment makes the most sense, but the reality is that it's not the way it's apportioned now. So it's misleading to say that Scotland runs a smaller deficit now, because it doesn't, because it is not apportioned 90% of North Sea oil revenues. It should be, but it isn't.

[xbl]

I hope our land isn't going to be allocated in any other way than geographically. If the CDU is divvied up by population, then everything south of Aberdeen will become England.

[Ad Lib]

So give me a number, what exactly is the "margin of error"? Does it have a value? A percentage?

GERS figures for the year before those cited by vikingTON were subject to revisions of 0.2%. Previous years have been revised by subsequent reports by as much as 0.4%. When North Sea oil is accounted for on a pro-rata basis (as it is now; GERS is a hypothetical and bears no relation to actual control and application of resources) the difference in deficits is within that margin.

[xbl]

So when you take out Scotland's biggest earner, its only a small improvement. You do remember what side you are on, right?

[Ad Lib]

So when you take out Scotland's biggest earner, its only a small improvement. You do remember what side you are on, right?

Double-checked it. When you remove oil, we have a (marginally) higher relative deficit (circa 9.0% to 8.9%).

My point was, and is, that it won't make a significant difference, in terms of revenue, being independent. Long-term it might make a considerable dent in our underlying government debts relative to the size of the economy, but it doesn't alter the fact we continue to run a considerable (structural) deficit and one which will require austerity (i.e. spending cuts and tax rises) to reduce and sustain being reduced, in the short to medium term, to which Sturgeon referred. It may well be softer, but not significantly, and it doesn't mean that we can afford to spend at the level we are. We can just marginally less not afford it than the UK at the moment.

[Baxter Parp]

I hope our land isn't going to be allocated in any other way than geographically. If the CDU is divvied up by population, then everything south of Aberdeen will become England.

I expect the least they'll want is a fair share of our coal and hydro plants. Seems fair.

[xbl]

I expect the least they'll want is a fair share of our coal and hydro plants. Seems fair.

And we will only get a population share of our water. October 2014, 90% of loch ness will be siphoned south of the border. Which will be 5 miles away.

[Baxter Parp]

So when you take out Scotland's biggest earner, its only a small improvement. You do remember what side you are on, right?

Double-checked it. When you remove oil, we have a (marginally) higher relative deficit (circa 9.0% .

Why would you remove oil?

[Ad Lib]

Why would you remove oil?

Either excluding North Sea oil revenues or apportioning it pro-rata gives that effect. I'm not saying "you would remove it". I'm saying the way it is currently apportioned, fairly or unfairly, is pro-rata, and that either including that pro-rata share or excluding oil completely from the equation, puts deficit as a percentage of GDP for Scotland and the UK as a whole as virtually identical to one another.

[Todders]

Translates as - "There's no reason to remove the oil from the calculations but I'll do so anyway as it's the only way to arrive at the figure which supports my argument."

[the jambo-rocker]

It should also be compulsory for everyone with >50 posts on this thread to read the Quebec secession legal and economic considerations.

It will answer a lot of questions.

Is wikipedia OK?

Labour starting their own wee group is a weird one. You'd assume with the money already in the BT campaign, and with labour activists already providing the bulk of BT's presence on the ground, then this new Labour group will probably not amount to more than the same BT campaigner putting through the odd extra leaflet that says 'honestly, we're not the Tories!'

Looks like they are running their own distinct campaign as well as being a part of BT. which gives them distance from the "standing side by side with the tories" line. The SNP could be looking to do similar to seprate themselves from YesScotland (and mitigate the criticism that YesScotland is an SNP front)

Better Together, the hypocrisy from Labour has just went supernova here.

Labour aren't pulling out of BetterTogether. From a friend of mine who works for them, United with Labour is project "neutralise the campaigning in bed with the Tories" to protect their position in Greater Glasgow and it won't in any way reduce their involvement in BetterTogether, either administratively or substantively.

So basically, they are full of shite and negative politiking, COS TORIES KEN!

"So tell me Lamont what is your version of if we stay in the union?"

"We need tae huv a debate, and possibly gie you more devolv'd poowrs!"

"So basically, what the BT Co-alition party are offering right now?"

..."We need tae huv a debate..."

Incidentally, does this mean by having another NO party enter the fold; I'm assuming that means another campaign means more spending money for their NO side of the campaign in general?

[Reynard]

Is wikipedia OK?

Better Together, the hypocrisy from Labour has just went supernova here.

So basically, they are full of shite and negative politiking, COS TORIES KEN!

"So tell me Lamont what is your version of if we stay in the union?"

"We need tae huv a debate, and possibly gie you more devolv'd poowrs!"

"So basically, what the BT Co-alition party are offering right now?"

..."We need tae huv a debate..."

Incidentally, does this mean by having another NO party enter the fold; I'm assuming that means another campaign means more spending money for their NO side of the campaign in general?

Seems union led.

I really dont know why they are wasting time and money on this anyway. It won't affect the no landslide regardless. It just looks a bit like Labour positioning themselves for winning power at the next Holyrood elections. Theres no doubt this SNP outfit is jaded, it has probably been in power too long already.