When will indyref2 happen?

[BawWatchin]

10 hours ago, Malky3 said:

1. Seemingly. Like I said I have no idea.

Sums you up in general tbh.

[Baxter Parp]

It doesn't show anything, it's literally just one graph that shows that the income from north sea oil decreased in the 2010s and the onshore deficit has also increased. There is no more info than that.
Fair dos, critique the methodology etc all you like but there's absolutely nothing in your graph that suggests what you're getting at.

As someone has patiently explained already, the graph does not show tax gathered. It shows the proportion of the UK deficit allocated to Scotland.

[Malky3]

58 minutes ago, git-intae-thum said:

The graph comes from Richard Murphy's taxresearch website I believe.

It is nothing to do with NS oil revenue. It shows the proportion of the UK's net fiscal balance apportioned to Scotland each financial year since 2002.

The point being the spike since 2012. A drop in NS revenue would impact negatively on Scottish revenue figures, but to suggest it accounts for a sudden leap from a steady ~10% share of proportion of deficit to over 50% of entire UK is farcical. Particularly since oil price did not really drop until 2014/15 and has since somewhat recovered.

As helpfully pointed out by Renton above, Scotland is being disproportionately allocated a share of deficit on all kinds of nonsense. That is factual. The supposed deficit is not.

The GERs figures were/are designed to hide wealth transfer from the UK regions to London and the SE. This year they have just went a bit far and are rightly being ridiculed.

Surely if the size of the UK deficit falls but the Scottish deficit remains static this would lead to Scotland showing as having a greater percentage of the overall deficit? 

Scotlands economic problem is that it has been very heavily reliant on oil and banking and both sectors, in Scotland, have struggled since 2014. All of the countries that are dependent on oil have struggled over the same period. I'm sure if oil prices ever recovered the Nationalists would be more than happy to use the GERs figures again to tell us all how we'd all be richer in an independent Scotland. 

The truth is we're better as part of a bigger group of countries offsetting the risk within a larger more diverse economy. 

 

 

Edited August 22, 2019 by Malky3

[harry94]

1 hour ago, git-intae-thum said:

The graph comes from Richard Murphy's taxresearch website I believe.

It is nothing to do with NS oil revenue. It shows the proportion of the UK's net fiscal balance apportioned to Scotland each financial year since 2002.

The point being the spike since 2012. A drop in NS revenue would impact negatively on Scottish revenue figures, but to suggest it accounts for a sudden leap from a steady ~10% share of proportion of deficit to over 50% of entire UK is farcical. Particularly since oil price did not really drop until 2014/15 and has since somewhat recovered.

As helpfully pointed out by Renton above, Scotland is being disproportionately allocated a share of deficit on all kinds of nonsense. That is factual. The supposed deficit is not.

The GERs figures were/are designed to hide wealth transfer from the UK regions to London and the SE. This year they have just went a bit far and are rightly being ridiculed.

I'm not disputing the graphs existence.

The point is that there isn't the evidence there to confirm what you are saying isn't at all scientific in any way.

Just looking at the information in a very different way and considering the revenue and expenditure areas and how they have changed. These tables are presented a little bit differently as I just took a quick screengrab from the reports but for both, the onshore revenue and expenditure are presented the same way for Scotland and the UK.

 

From the revenue side, you see that we hover around the 8% of UK Revenue mark consistently in onshore revnue generation per GDP. There is a decline of 0.3% from our highest here in 2009-10 and the lowest in 2017-18.

On expenditure:

As a share of the UK, we’re consistently hovering over the 9% mark of UK total spending for the whole period from 2009 with a deviation of about 0.3%.

The fact is that our spending levels and onshore taxation have remained similar since 2009 and there’s nothing there that suggests any drastic change. The whole of the UK, including ourselves, as an entirety though has generally moved in the direction of cutting expenditure as a whole starting at just above 45% and getting down to around 38% per GDP – that’s seen a deficit reduction overall.

If the trend continues where we see similar proportions of spend and tax across the whole of the UK but the deficit for the country decreases – the ‘Scottish’ proportional deficit will rise and then hit infinity when there’s a national surplus and then abruptly hit zero if the trend continued even longer and we had no relative deficit at all.

Just on the oil argument. If you took 2018-19 and added the oil receipts from 2010-11 (we could do more but just the first that come to mind), it’d give us £7459 million V £1237 million for this year. That additional £6222 million on revenue would take our income to £68930 million and the UK would rise from £783850 million to £790072 million. Suddenly our share of revenue is up to 8.7% which is pretty much pre oil crash levels. Our ‘percentage of the deficit’ then goes from the 53.6% to 37% and you again see that considerable gap between the two lines .

I get why it raises eyebrows and its fair game to talk about the methodology of GERS etc in how data is collected and used but there’s absolutely nothing insane in the headline figures that scream stich up or on their own suggest something sinister is going on. One of the primary motivations for independence is that the economy has been poorly handled and there's nothing there that contradicts that argument.

Edited August 22, 2019 by harry94

[git-intae-thum]

42 minutes ago, harry94 said:

I'm not disputing the graphs existence.

The point is that there isn't the evidence there to confirm what you are saying isn't at all scientific in any way.

Just looking at the information in a very different way and considering the revenue and expenditure areas and how they have changed. These tables are presented a little bit differently as I just took a quick screengrab from the reports but for both, the onshore revenue and expenditure are presented the same way for Scotland and the UK.

 

From the revenue side, you see that we hover around the 8% of UK Revenue mark consistently in onshore revnue generation per GDP. There is a decline of 0.3% from our highest here in 2009-10 and the lowest in 2017-18.

On expenditure:

As a share of the UK, we’re consistently hovering over the 9% mark of UK total spending for the whole period from 2009 with a deviation of about 0.3%.

The fact is that our spending levels and onshore taxation have remained similar since 2009 and there’s nothing there that suggests any drastic change. The whole of the UK, including ourselves, as an entirety though has generally moved in the direction of cutting expenditure as a whole starting at just above 45% and getting down to around 38% per GDP – that’s seen a deficit reduction overall.

If the trend continues where we see similar proportions of spend and tax across the whole of the UK but the deficit for the country decreases – the ‘Scottish’ proportional deficit will rise and then hit infinity when there’s a national surplus and then abruptly hit zero if the trend continued even longer and we had no relative deficit at all.

Just on the oil argument. If you took 2018-19 and added the oil receipts from 2010-11 (we could do more but just the first that come to mind), it’d give us £7459 million V £1237 million for this year. That additional £6222 million on revenue would take our income to £68930 million and the UK would rise from £783850 million to £790072 million. Suddenly our share of revenue is up to 8.7% which is pretty much pre oil crash levels. Our ‘percentage of the deficit’ then goes from the 53.6% to 37% and you again see that considerable gap between the two lines .

I get why it raises eyebrows and its fair game to talk about the methodology of GERS etc in how data is collected and used but there’s absolutely nothing insane in the headline figures that scream stich up or on their own suggest something sinister is going on. One of the primary motivations for independence is that the economy has been poorly handled and there's nothing there that contradicts that argument.

Very interesting and detailed reply.

I was not suggesting anything sinister, just highlighting the daftness of the figures that the current methodology produces. And following on from that headline figures that numpties jump on.

As detailed by Richard Murphy there are  issues with both how income raised through the varying taxations is calculated and apportioned. There is no clear way of calculating all tax revenue on a geographical basis in the UK. Because of our London centric economy, the figures are heavily skewed favouring that region. The best explanation from this is from Murphies own website.

data I published for Barclays Bank in 2014 that showed, according to its data, the 14 people it employed in Luxembourg in 2013 made a profit of £1.38 billion between them, or £98.5 million each. The 54,000 staff in the UK did, however, lose £25,000 each.

I have to tell you the Barclays data was wrong.

And I also have to say that Barclays could not have made more money by closing all its operations but that in Luxembourg because all Barclays Luxembourg reported was money syphoned off from elsewhere in Barclays.

And that is exactly what this charade from the ONS and in GERS is reporting. It is showing that London syphons of money from the rest of the country.

How does it do that? Try this list:

1. Most interest is paid to London
2. Most profits are recorded in L0ndon
3. Most leasing is recorded in London
4. That may be true of rents as well
5. Credit card fees and bank charges will largely be recorded in London
6. So too will insurance

And all that means there is a lot of profit in London that is not anywhere else.

Then add this:

• Most bosses are in London
• As are most high paid employees in most companies
• And so are most oligarchs
• Most wealth is in the south-east, and so are those who charge high fees to service it.

So incomes are high in London, but actually, the rest of the country supports that by actually doing the work that is needed, at much lower income, to keep the country going.

Then note that:

• Rents are higher in London, and so is tax paid on it
• As are all the service fees for that

And all that happens because of the o0ther factors already noted.

And what you get is a scenario where wealth is sucked out of the country to be recorded in London, just as Barclays sucked income from all over the world to record in Luxembourg in 2013. But that did not mean Barclays earned that income in Luxembourg. In fact, I am sure it did not.

 

He is essentially describing the multiplier effect in action. Wealth flows to where wealth is gathered, not created. GERs has no way to quantify this.

With regards allocation of UK deficit, well the clear mistake being made is allocating Scotland a population based share of the cost, whilst adding the resultant income benefit generated from the associated economic activiy to London and the South East. If these figures were credible, they would have a column where that income was removed from London and allocated to Scotland. 

I am sorry it cannot be more scientific. But you see the figures to differentiate the differing revenue/cost streams do not exist. Herein lies the problem.

[DeeTillEhDeh]

GERS is designed to underestimate Scotland's income and overestimate it's expenditure. It doesn't allocate some incomes gathered in London that are actually generated in Scotland. It assumes that Scotland benefits from all UK expenditure when it doesn't.

 

It's a paper exercise in nullifying the economic argument for independence - it has no relation to reality. An independent Scotland would be gathering all its taxes, not paying for HS2 or Crossrail. It would not be paying high salaries to London-based government departments - and the salaries of the heads of Scottish government departments would count as Scottish income not London incomes. There would also be a need for some big businesses to establish Scottish headquarters or main offices - trying to run their Scottish activities from a London base would be cost-infective.

 

It would be more interesting (and useful) if we could have honest statistics and data that could paint a truer picture of the Scottish economy - instead we have this gerrymandered data that tells us absolutely nothing.

 

 

[Malky3]

52 minutes ago, git-intae-thum said:

Very interesting and detailed reply.

I was not suggesting anything sinister, just highlighting the daftness of the figures that the current methodology produces. And following on from that headline figures that numpties jump on.

As detailed by Richard Murphy there are  issues with both how income raised through the varying taxations is calculated and apportioned. There is no clear way of calculating all tax revenue on a geographical basis in the UK. Because of our London centric economy, the figures are heavily skewed favouring that region. The best explanation from this is from Murphies own website.

data I published for Barclays Bank in 2014 that showed, according to its data, the 14 people it employed in Luxembourg in 2013 made a profit of £1.38 billion between them, or £98.5 million each. The 54,000 staff in the UK did, however, lose £25,000 each.

I have to tell you the Barclays data was wrong.

And I also have to say that Barclays could not have made more money by closing all its operations but that in Luxembourg because all Barclays Luxembourg reported was money syphoned off from elsewhere in Barclays.

And that is exactly what this charade from the ONS and in GERS is reporting. It is showing that London syphons of money from the rest of the country.

How does it do that? Try this list:

1. Most interest is paid to London
2. Most profits are recorded in L0ndon
3. Most leasing is recorded in London
4. That may be true of rents as well
5. Credit card fees and bank charges will largely be recorded in London
6. So too will insurance

And all that means there is a lot of profit in London that is not anywhere else.

Then add this:

• Most bosses are in London
• As are most high paid employees in most companies
• And so are most oligarchs
• Most wealth is in the south-east, and so are those who charge high fees to service it.

So incomes are high in London, but actually, the rest of the country supports that by actually doing the work that is needed, at much lower income, to keep the country going.

Then note that:

• Rents are higher in London, and so is tax paid on it
• As are all the service fees for that

And all that happens because of the o0ther factors already noted.

And what you get is a scenario where wealth is sucked out of the country to be recorded in London, just as Barclays sucked income from all over the world to record in Luxembourg in 2013. But that did not mean Barclays earned that income in Luxembourg. In fact, I am sure it did not.

 

He is essentially describing the multiplier effect in action. Wealth flows to where wealth is gathered, not created. GERs has no way to quantify this.

With regards allocation of UK deficit, well the clear mistake being made is allocating Scotland a population based share of the cost, whilst adding the resultant income benefit generated from the associated economic activiy to London and the South East. If these figures were credible, they would have a column where that income was removed from London and allocated to Scotland. 

I am sorry it cannot be more scientific. But you see the figures to differentiate the differing revenue/cost streams do not exist. Herein lies the problem.

Ok, so as I said last night, how would an Independent Scotland change this? 

Are all the banking and oil HQ's going to sell up in London and move to Scotland? Are all the insurance companies? How will an Independent Scotland legally break from PFI agreements that see money flowing from Scotland to Finance Houses in London (I think Jackton Police College was the example cited two days ago)? 

I'd love to hear the proposals from the nationalists and I'd love to see their financial calculations. I reckon we won't see it though cause as stupid as Michael Stewarts Tweet was yesterday he's probably got as much of a clue about it as Derek McKay, Nicola Sturgeon or Ian Blackford. 

I'm not worried about the GERs figures, not because I think Scotland is a booming economy - but because that as part of the United Kingdom we get our share of the money from the UK revenue budget through the Barnett Formula. We know that because of the Barnett Formula Scotland gets a generous deal per head of population compared to our colleagues in England, Northern Ireland and Wales. And our Scottish Government spends the money that it's given - as it should do - as it sees fit. I'd be far more concerned if they held onto the money Scotland raised through the Barnett Formula in an attempt to make spending match the revenue being raised in Scotland for that year. 

Nationalists are the ones getting their pants in a twist over this cause they are desperate to show that Scotland gets a bad deal in the UK and that Westminster and the English are screwing us over. Fact is that isn't the case. Some years, when the oil price is high, Scotland may be subsidising parts of the rest of the UK, other years -,when oil revenues are low - we find that the rest of the UK are subsidising Scotland. That's what should happen in a political partnership. 

If the SNP, or the Nationalists want the 55% of Scots who heroically voted to remain in the United Kingdom in 2014 to change their vote next time round they really are going to have to come up with a better, more detailed plan than just kidding on we'll have everything we've currently got. That lie has been well and truly shot to pieces. 

[Malky3]

29 minutes ago, DeeTillEhDeh said:

GERS is designed to underestimate Scotland's income and overestimate it's expenditure. It doesn't allocate some incomes gathered in London that are actually generated in Scotland. It assumes that Scotland benefits from all UK expenditure when it doesn't.

 

It's a paper exercise in nullifying the economic argument for independence - it has no relation to reality. An independent Scotland would be gathering all its taxes, not paying for HS2 or Crossrail. It would not be paying high salaries to London-based government departments - and the salaries of the heads of Scottish government departments would count as Scottish income not London incomes. There would also be a need for some big businesses to establish Scottish headquarters or main offices - trying to run their Scottish activities from a London base would be cost-infective.

 

It would be more interesting (and useful) if we could have honest statistics and data that could paint a truer picture of the Scottish economy - instead we have this gerrymandered data that tells us absolutely nothing.

Nonsense. I think you may have missed the Globalisation that has been going on for the past 20 odd years. Big business wouldn't touch Scotland with a barge pole if it continued to raise taxes. 

[jakedee]

Some people (no names mentioned) harp on about " grievance politics" then use lines like "Nats want us to believe Westminster and the English are screwing us over". It's as if they want to instigate a grievance against the English. Very strange.

[D Angelo Barksdale]

8 minutes ago, jakedee said:

Some people (no names mentioned) harp on about " grievance politics" then use lines like "Nats want us to believe Westminster and the English are screwing us over". It's as if they want to instigate a grievance against the English. Very strange.

I see that you missed the memo.

If there is an issue with something that Westminster is or isn't doing then the correct term we use is 'grievance politics'. 'Grudge and grievance' is also accepted.

Any issues with Holyrood (and Brussels tbf), we use phrases such as 'legitimate concerns', 'the SNP/EU must provide answers' and 'they should be getting on with the day job'. Please note that you may also use these terms even if the issue is reserved to Westminster.

[DeeTillEhDeh]

Nonsense. I think you may have missed the Globalisation that has been going on for the past 20 odd years. Big business wouldn't touch Scotland with a barge pole if it continued to raise taxes. 

You do realise that the UK Government has been responsible for more tax rises than the Scottish government?

In a global economy there is, despite your lies, the need for local HQs in countries that businesses operate in, often to use local expertise in dealing with local legalities and culture.

[beefybake]

2 hours ago, DeeTillEhDeh said:

GERS is designed to underestimate Scotland's income and overestimate it's expenditure. It doesn't allocate some incomes gathered in London that are actually generated in Scotland. It assumes that Scotland benefits from all UK expenditure when it doesn't.

 

It's a paper exercise in nullifying the economic argument for independence - it has no relation to reality. An independent Scotland would be gathering all its taxes, not paying for HS2 or Crossrail. It would not be paying high salaries to London-based government departments - and the salaries of the heads of Scottish government departments would count as Scottish income not London incomes. There would also be a need for some big businesses to establish Scottish headquarters or main offices - trying to run their Scottish activities from a London base would be cost-infective.

 

It would be more interesting (and useful) if we could have honest statistics and data that could paint a truer picture of the Scottish economy - instead we have this gerrymandered data that tells us absolutely nothing.

 

 

The overwhelming likelihood is that post-independence, and with membership of the EU, Scotland will be a magnet.  Whilst Rump-UK festers on ....... and investors and businesses give it a bodyswerve as an unstable and unreliable place for their businesses to prosper.

Edited August 22, 2019 by beefybake

[microdave]

[Malky3]

1 hour ago, microdave said:

Wow, accountants who are approaching 280 years of service. That's loyalty for you eh.....

[Malky3]

1 hour ago, DeeTillEhDeh said:

You do realise that the UK Government has been responsible for more tax rises than the Scottish government?

In a global economy there is, despite your lies, the need for local HQs in countries that businesses operate in, often to use local expertise in dealing with local legalities and culture.
 

Cause the culture gap between London and Scotland is fucking huge isn't it? 

Do you even read the pish you post? 

I doubt a company would move it's  HQ to Scotland in the event of Scottish Independence. The likes of Shell, Amoco, BP and Conoco have far wider interests than a few rigs off the coast of Scotland. And one HQ we do know would have to move out of Scotland - according to their outgoing CEO - is RBS who says the bank would be too big for the Scottish economy. 

[Dan Steele]

[lichtgilphead]

Apropos of nothing, did you know that

Shell's HQ is in The Hague

Amoco & BP are parts of the same company, but that Amoco's HQ was in Chicago.

Conoco is based in Houston (not Houston in Ayrshire)

Not every company HQ is currently in London, and there will be a lot fewer after October 31st.

 

[Malky3]

31 minutes ago, lichtgilphead said:

Apropos of nothing, did you know that

Shell's HQ is in The Hague

Amoco & BP are parts of the same company, but that Amoco's HQ was in Chicago.

Conoco is based in Houston (not Houston in Ayrshire)

Not every company HQ is currently in London, and there will be a lot fewer after October 31st.

 

Are you slow? I never said those companies HQ's were in London. What I said is that they wouldn't be moving to Scotland in the event of Scottish Independence. 

The complaint from Nationalists has been that money flows out of Scotland before being accounted in the GERs Report. I asked - I think legitimately - that if that is indeed the case, how would a Scottish Government change that in the unlikely event of Independence. Try to keep up. 

Oh and just to show you up even more - Houston is in Renfrewshire, not Ayrshire. Are you sure you are even Scottish? 

Edited August 22, 2019 by Malky3

[Bairnardo]

Are you slow? I never said those companies HQ's were in London. What I said is that they wouldn't be moving to Scotland in the event of Scottish Independence. 
The complaint from Nationalists has been that money flows out of Scotland before being accounted in the GERs Report. I asked - I think legitimately - that if that is indeed the case, how would a Scottish Government change that in the unlikely event of Independence. Try to keep up. 

Most of those companies have offices in London. BP and Total (the UKCS largest producers) do. What would a company want with an office in a London which was out of the EU and politically isolated from the North East of Scotland which represents probably 90% of their business interests in Europe?

These conpanies also have offices in Aberdeen incidentally. Is it beyond the reals of normal thinking that they would move the jobs from to Aberdeen or even Edinburgh in that case? One thinks not.

[Malky3]

1 minute ago, Bairnardo said:

Most of those companies have offices in London. BP and Total (the UKCS largest producers) do. What would a company want with an office in a London which was out of the EU and politically isolated from the North East of Scotland which represents probably 90% of their business interests in Europe?

These conpanies also have offices in Aberdeen incidentally. Is it beyond the reals of normal thinking that they would move the jobs from to Aberdeen or even Edinburgh in that case? One thinks not.

THe company I work for has a regional office in Glasgow but all the contracts and profits go through Head Office in England. I hate repeating myself but how would those advocating Independence change that in the future? I'm not interested in suppositions.