The stench of desperation
…hangs heavy about Scottish Labour. In an extraordinary piece on the STV website, the party today appeared to downgrade its bold assertion of just a few months ago that it could hold all 41 seats it won in Scotland in 2010, and perhaps win even more, to simply getting more than the SNP.
But the most remarkable thing happened at the end.
That, readers, is quite the admission. That’s a party which has utterly dominated UK politics in Scotland for six decades openly acknowledging that its entire campaign in the last three weeks will be based on railing against a complete fantasy.
Full Fiscal Autonomy isn’t going to happen. Labour, the Tories and the Lib Dems are all against it. It was categorically rejected by all three UK parties during the Smith Commission deliberations, which nobody is proposing to reopen. The closest the SNP could possibly hope to come to it would be to lose a vote by 59 to 591.
But so utterly bereft are Scottish Labour of anything approaching a shred of dignity that their “leader”, still smarting from being humiliatingly put in his place by half of the UK Labour front bench a couple of days ago, is now willing to say – in public, on the record, to a news organisation – that it will base its entire offer to the Scottish public on fabricated fear of a phantom bogeyman.
It may as well say “Vote Labour and we’ll protect Scotland from giant alien lizards”.
It remains to be seen if it’ll actually work – the SNP’s response to the line of attack so far has been uncharacteristically ham-fisted, because the Nats seem unwilling to concede the necessary amount of face in order to deal candidly with the issue. It’s a stubborn hubris that may yet come to cost them seats, because so many of the country’s constituencies are on a knife-edge.
(In a better world the SNP could rely on the media to do its job properly and simply ask the leaders of each Unionist party “Would you vote for FFA or not?”, thereby killing the issue stone dead, but we don’t live in that world and the sooner Nicola Sturgeon and her team accept the fact the better the election will go for them.)
We suspect that ultimately the Scottish people aren’t so dim as to fall for Labour’s imaginary monster under the bed. The fact that the party is even prepared to try is a sign of how spectacularly far it’s fallen.
I was missing Jim the last couple of days but am now wishing he’d crawl back into the hole his chumps at labour HQ sent him too
This is down to McTernan & McDougall, Project Fear’s Imperial Masters.
It’s all they know. Fear. They won, just; last time and they hope for a damage limitation this time around.
Of course, the old Praetorian Guard, the BBC, will fall into step and propagate this giant lizard with gleeful gusto.
Maybe, but by the end of week one the electorate will be screaming: “Don’t keep giving us this SNP bad crap – for God’s sake, man, tell us more about your own policies OR WE WON’T VOTE FOR YOU!”
Something akin to the western front winter mentality of shooting at anything that moves in order to survive (can’t remember which side it was), it was a terrifying prospect none the less.
Shorthand is given a Tory or SNP adversary its clear which Jim fronted Labour are gunning for.
I seem to remember from just the other day that the £7.6bn figure was wrong, It had been miscalculated and had been withdrawn. Or maybe it’s me getting mixed up. Who knows amongst all this crap.
True indeed Rev, shows exactly how far Labour have fallen. Tom Harris, doesn’t know what has gone wrong. Well I’m afraid that is more than obvious to anyone watching them run about like headless chickens.
Oh well boys, only another three weeks of this crap to go.
What would happen if the Tories turned round and voted for it as part of their EVEL plans?
The sum total of Labour’s policies on Scotland:
“SNP Bad”.
OK you guys with a good turn of phrase write to all the newspapers with a paraphrase of this.
I am sure Rev you are not bothered about theft of your intellectual property and thus will free up your copyright!
What if FFA is the SNP price of putting Miliband in No.10
because the negotiations would take a while to implement then there’s phasing in time
About 5 years should cover it nicely
Suits me sir
“We will turn this into real life examples.”
There is a “f” too many in that sentence
Yet another death rattle from Labour. Can’t they just roll over and die or do we have another three weeks of these groans and gasps to endure?
Didn’t Nicola actually ask CreepyJim that very question during the debate?
Perhaps she thinks it only need asked once.
This Business for Scotland article should be required reading and used to counter the hypothetical Armageddon.
http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/project-fear-relaunched-to-justify-backtracking-on-vow/
I’m sick of politicians scaring people with big numbers.
George Osborne is currently borrowing about 7.6 billion every month. No-one says the UK shouldn’t have fiscal autonomy.
This 7.6 billion ‘black hole’ looks to me to simply be Scotland’s share of the UK’s budget deficit. It’s what Westminster has to borrow on Scotland’s behalf because UK politicians have spent the last twenty or thirty years irresponsibly mucking up the economy.
It’s more ‘you can’t possibly run your own affairs – look how poor you are!’ when the only reason you’re poor is because the other person has gone on a spending spree with the joint credit card.
If I’m wrong and actually Scotland’s deficit is proportionally bigger than that of the UK as a whole, someone please point me at the figures.
Why doesn’t SNP respond to this black hole shit by explaining we are fighting for the right to make our own mistakes; nothing more, nothing less.
See my previous post at 0706pm under “that’ll be yer vow then” article
This Institute of Fiscal Studies posse really cracks me up. Venerable sages to a man and woman, the Eternal Keepers of the Prudent Economic Flame, they really are the dogs bollox…
The only thing is, I don’t recall the merest cheep from them ahead of the most spectacular financial crash in UK history.
Funny that.
Interesting story about Julian Assange saying we were right to suspect MI5 involvement in September and that there was an attempt to influence the outcome.
Let’s not forget the fact SNP aren’t asking for FFA.
Oh Jim, this is gonna blow up in your face AGAIN.
Dim slim Jim is gonna campaign on something the SNP aren’t even proposing or is in a manifesto (as yet).
This is gonna end badly for Jim.
Great I canna wait.
Surely any backtracking from the nationalists now will only be seen as an omission or as the media will portray it “Nat lie uncovered”. It may, indeed, cost them a few seats but so too could the medias publication of the story if it shows the SNP to no longer believe in independence or of trying to ” deceive ” voters.
… and a cry of “Pish” rang over the crowd!
This bollocks needs to forensically taken apart, line by line, word by word and by elementary arithmetic.
If we are such an apparent burden on the rUK then, to quote someone or other, “Set my People free!”
I wonder how many NO voters are now feeling a wee bit gullible?.
I wonder how many NO voters are too thick to realise they have been duped?
I wonder how many NO voters don’t care that they have been taken for a ride?
I wonder how many NO voters don’t care that everyone else knows they were taken for a ride?.
@ gordoz:
“(can’t remember which side it was)”
A bit like Labour then.
It’s odd that what is now demonised by Jim Murphy as “FFA” sounds a lot like the “near federalism” or “home rule for Scotland” aka: “Devo Max” that was promised by Westminster’s “solemn and binding Vow” (signed-off by Labour and “personally guaranteed” by the now ex-opposition backbench MP, Gordon Brown) just over six months ago. It’s a funny old game…
To date it has been a dismal campaign of lies and confusion as to what is devolved and what is not. The notion that they will spend the next 21 days pushing a lie is hardly a surprise. There are no positive reasons for voting Labour.
Labour cannot fight for Scotland. They will do as Balls says and like it.
Well Rev it is up to you again. I’m sure you can get the mainstream press to ask that question about whether they would vote for FFA. Go for it.
I actually thought Sarah Smith was doing her job the other night. She said straight out “but none of you three support FFA so we really don’t need to talk about it, do we?”
Then she launched into Swinney and demanded he explain where the £7.6bn was going to come from. :-/
OK, maybe I’m over simplifying things here but the term ‘black hole’ is really just a political pejorative for the more fiscally accurate term ‘deficit’ is it not? The current UK deficit is £107Billion. Avery rough carve up of fiscal responsibility sees Scotland taking 10% of that. That’s (for the hard of thinking) £10.7 billion. The IFS projected deficit is £7.6 billion. Is that not effectively an immediate reduction in ‘Scotland’s deficit’ of £3billion? Is maybe THAT one of the reasons that FFA is off the table?
D’ye ‘hink Jim’s looking forward to that nice long holiday he’ll be taking on May 8th…?
(Maybe he can finally complete that degree. And I hear Hydra and SPECTRE are still looking for people.)
The 7.6 Billion scare is very easy to rebut. But if the gist of this article is that the SNP has been reluctant to address the issue seriously, or that it has handled it badly, I would agree.
When Labour ran the country in 2009 the deficit was up to £156 billions. http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2010/oct/18/deficit-debt-government-borrowing-data#img-1
Hard to believe these reckless morons think they can lecture anybody on economics after the damage they done to this country.
East Renfrewshire deserves a more reliable MP than Murphy. If we re-elect him people living here will become a laughing stock.
What is worse is that, despite his Holyrood ambitions, Labour surely won’t want him there after the mess he is making of the campaign. So if we in East Renfrewshire are foolish enough to re-elect him ro Westminster, we wil be stuck with him for another 5 years!
U R G E N T!
U R G E N T!
U R G E N T!
U R G E N T!
Can everyone on here who is intending to vote PLEASE contact their local Electoral Registration Office to confirm that they are ACTUALLY still registered to vote on 7th May?
I have again contacted the office in Glasgow (for the 3rd time since January) and been told that I am not registered and have to apply (for a THIRD time)! This is after I was sent a letter from the Glasgow Electoral Registration Office a few weeks ago saying my postal vote application was registered and the form would be sent out.
What the hell is happening with this new individual registration system? I really do fear we are going to see a UK-wide voting cock up that will make the 2007 Scottish Parliament election cock up look good.
How many people are at present thinking they are registered, only to find out on 7th May that they can’t vote and are disenfranchised? I’m going to contact the press about this tomorrow morning.
DON’T LOSE YOUR RIGHT TO VOTE THROUGH INCOMPETENCE
No, I don’t believe FFA is on the cards either. The chances of any reading getting through the Lords is slim to zero, but simply arguing that its the very definition of home rule shouldn’t be ruled out.
I mean we believe the vow to be totally defunct. We can shout it from the roof tops, use semaphore and scream till we’re blue in the face but there are a significant number of people out there who simply reply ‘well you would say that wouldn’t you?’ So I reckon it can only help if both the commons and the Lords step on it very publicly and very loudly.
The more a certain contingent of those who voted no have it hammered home to them that devo max will NEVER happen the better IMO.
Is Murphy trying to say that after 300 years of the Union Scotland cannot stand on its own two feet?
There was an excellent article in yesterday’s National with Stewart Hosie’s comments on the £7.6 billion nonsense. Explained the non-story very clearly for the layman I thought.
1. It’s an admission that London’s stewardship of our economy for over 300 years has left us with that 7.6bn deficit. That’s hardly a ringing endorsement, yet Labour say London knows what’s best for us.
2. Brown promised us Home Rule. Where is it? The Smith Commission’s proposals don’t even come close to Home Rule and they’ve yet to survive the Commons & Lords.
3. Should the SNP win the vast majority of seats here in Scotland, London ignores our wishes for Home Rule at the peril of the end of the Union.
We’re basing the election campaign on issues like the NHS, Labour wasting £100 BILLION on Trident and most paramount of all, TRUST.
It’s actually going down rather well. 🙂
So Labour can flail about all they want with yet more incompetent Project Fear lies as the only people likely to believe it are what little remains of their core vote anyway. It’s certainly done them fuck all good so far during the campaign.
This whole debate on a supposed black hole as a result of FFA is a bit confusing. No one seems to pick up on the fact that we have right now as full members of the UK’s pooling & sharing family a defecit (or black hole if you prefer) of some £108bn (http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/apr/23/uk-deficit-lowest-financial-crisis-osborne-budget). We have 8% of the UK population so our ‘share’ of that weiuld be nearly 9bn. Roll on FFA!
Another fitbaw based tactic..now its Whatabootery from Murphy
“We might have heehaw but what aboot them and that FFA eh?”
‘Between now and election day we will bring this £7.6bn to life. We will turn this into real life examples. It’s 7.6 billion reasons to vote Labour.’
He didn’t really say that, did he? What a naff statement.
I can’t wait for these ‘real life examples’ to illustrate a situation that doesn’t exist.
Pssst, Jim, over here…a real life example has to be, well, real life. Yes? You understand?
Graeme Borthwick – you are right. Lab/con/dem are all saying that the SNP are off their heads saying that Scotland can go it alone because we are an economic basket case. Well, after 300 years of Westminster leadership they should be ashamed but the Scottish accounting offices of all 3 parties seem incredibly proud of this fact. How disgusting.
By the way, I think that Scotland’s resources including our major natural resources are being under recorded by the Westminster accounting system because they know they need us to get them out of this 1.55 trillion pound deep, deep blackhole. So they laugh at our financial inadequacies whilst in reality they syphon off our wealth. Despicable.
I feel that Nicola and her colleagues are being sucked into the £7.6bn black hole nonsense. Lets bear in mind that most voters need to be reminded that this figure – whether it’s accurate or not – is merely Scotland’s share of the deficit run up my Westminster, and which we’re facing right now, never mind in the event of FFA.
It should also be pointed out in simple terms to the electorate that any pension fund accrued through the uk gov must be honoured by uk. This basic fact will be used very late in the campaign against the SNP, and any response not reported by the Murdoch Mob
Marie Clark is right.
The IFS calculated those costs & after releasing the figures they were told that they hadn’t included VAT receipts which would have reduced the ir figure quite dramatically. They have withdrawn those calculations now & are supposedly redoing their sums.
Looks like there’s going to be another opportunity for Jim to get egg on his face if he goes to town on the original figures & then the revised ones are much lower.
However, that said, no one is asking for FFA in 2015 anyway so a black hole is irrelevant whilst Scotland remains in the union. It just has to share the load of dealing with a much bigger black hole in the UK economy.
I also think Alex is doing a bit of mischief-making around FFA & winding up some people in the City about it. Usually it’s the City that winds everyone else up so he’s giving them a taste of their own medicine. Fair play to him though he does know what he’s doing when circulating in those establishment circles & is not without support there.
So all of the parties that promised FFA before the referendum are now opposing it.
LIARS.
This is NOT a democracy.
This is a tyranny.
Personally, I find the whole Labour Strategy from both sides of the border actually quite perplexing.
First, as highlighted in this piece, Labour will veto any chance of Scotland getting FFA, Devo Max or Home Rule. So, in that, they will anger a Scottish population in which a fair percentage (60% if I have this right) seek FFA, or at least considerable more powers.
Secondly, and probably guaranteed, Labour with the Tories will vote in Trident. The SNP, will try and vote against it, but will lose. In doing so, Labour will have betrayed the Scottish people for a second time as Trident is given a home at Faslane.
And who knows what else will implemented on the people of Scotland as Labour MP’s agree with the Tories that will almost certainly alienate the Scots further (I would not put it past Labour MP’s voting for an In-Out EU referendum if one was tabled).
Going back to this issue of FFA, it is this issue that perplexes me. As Westminster turns the screws on Scotland, it knows that rather than putting the Scots back in the box, it is not only going to widen the chasm between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom, but it will turn more and more Scots to the SNP, and thus, giving the Party a greater authority in demanding another Referendum.
How can this all be stopped? Well, what happens if we use reverse psychology?
Surely, if giving Scotland FFA would leave Scotland with a £7.6 Billion black hole, then why doesn’t Westminster just give it to the Scots. Why not give the Scots and the SNP enough rope that will allow them to hang themselves. After all, they are predicting ‘Armageddon’ if we should get it. Talk about killing 2 birds with 1 stone, if not solving 3 problems all at once. First, Westminster can gleefully point out that the Scots are incapable of running things financially. Secondly, it will lead the Scots turning on the SNP. Thirdly, all those voters will disillusionately turn back to the Westminster parties. And with that, Scotland is back in the box.
And yet …they won’t give it to us! Why? What is it that they are afraid of us seeing …or doing that will lead to the final dissolution of the Union. Something just doesn’t add up here. Here is the potential to kill Scottish Nationalism off for a very long time, and yet, Westminster refuses. Why? I don’t doubt that the there would be a black hole of a few billion, but if Westminster wants to save money …then give the Scots their toxic FFA that they are clamouring for.
IFS also didn’t take into account the expected £15bn rise in Scotland’s onshore revenues either.
They did incorporate the loss of offshore oil revenues though-funny that eh considering that Scotland doesn’t see a penny of that money anyway.
Any black hole is caused by Westminster governance.
Scotland still raises more in taxes (pro rata) than the rest of the UK. £54Billion and spends £54Billion but could raise more. Oil on the West. Corp tax which goes through UK Head Officesetc and spend less. A tax on ‘loss leading’ drink, cut Trident/illegal wars, tax evasion. A tax on nonproductive land (estates) etc. – £10Billion a year?
The UK raises £466 in tax revenues. The rest of the UK raises £412Billion and borrows and spends £90Billion.
Just what is wrong with Scotland running it’s own economy.The way Scotland has been treated by Westminster is absolutely abdominal. The lies, secrecy and deceit. Only the SNP will not let Westminster get away with it. They can still go to the EU Court of Human Rights. That is how Scotland got the right to a Referendum. Under the terms of the Act of Union Scotland has a different legal system and the people in Scotland are ‘Sovereign’ not subjects of the Crown.
The SNP has mitigated the ‘bedroom tax’ protected SNHS/Education. Increased SNHS funding to £11.8Billion, increased Student funding, mitigated welfare cuts £100Million, prescriptions, social care etc. Invested in essential development which will help the Scottish economy. The Queensferry Bridge, AWPR, rail services between Gladgow/Edinburgh and the Borders railway.
For the first time unemployment in Scotland is lower than the rest of the UK and the population is growing because of Devolution and the Scottish Parliament. It takes longer than 4 years to eradicate 40 years of debt.
Apparently 100,000 voters have dropped off the electoral roll in Scotland according to ERS today.
Not just Labour
Malcolm Bruce liberal peer
If SNP want FFA we might even give it to them
Using it as a negative
What other country in the world is treated like Scotland by it’s neighbour? The put downs, the lies the abdominal Press bombardment, the divide and rule tactics. The threats, the total lack of democracy or democratic rights. British patriotic nonsense.
Surely the importance of holding the balance of power is that SNP have a chance to force Labour MPs to support issues they otherwise wouldn’t.
It will be a trading deal. Take for instance the devolving broadcasting to Edinburgh. There’s no way that would pass a normal vote in Westminster. But if SNP hold the balance of power they can say we’ll pass your budget, Labour, but only if you include broadcasting devolution in it (or full fiscal autonomy, or devolving welfare).
Stuart Hosie managed to get some good info here.
http://www.facebook.com/paul.jennings.90281/videos/o.8259177988/10153327789968816/?type=2&theater
Underlying their bulshit is still a majority of Scottish voters wanting a devo max Scotland. They wanted it before Sept 18 and polls show that they want it even more now.
Highly respected IFS say https://archive.today/lgqH0
“The IFS said the drastic squeeze would require further cuts of 14.1%, or more than £50bn, to annual spending over the next five years.”
Or much the same as this fantasy vote SLabour frighteners from creepy Jim, except Scotland will soon be at the mercy of EVEL Westminster, maybe a rampant Farage with a hard on for the Barnett formula and as ever, London and the south east getting ever more wealthy.
Red and blue tory orgasmic ecstasy at the current crude oil price just shows how fcuked up teamGB really is. Voters know this.
@Lollysmum – is that from up to date info?
Osbourne caused any deficit in Scotland’s finances. Putting Oil tax up 11% (£2Billion) a year in 2011. Oil producers cut production, but had to invest more to cover the 11% and continue with current projects. Scotland lost £4Billion+ a year – 4 x £4Billion+ – £16Billion. That would hove wiped out any deficit.
For many years now I have been giving all my wages to my next door neighbour and he gives me a wee bit pocket money back every month.
He uses the surplus to tart up his own house, buy a new car, go on foreign hildays and things like that. He even has my remote control so I have to watch whatever tv station he is watching.
I have been growing vegetables in my garden for the last wee while and I give them to him so he can sell them at the market and trouser the money he gets for them.
But fair do’s to him, he has said that if anyone ever attacks me he will ‘phone the polis.
The thing is, despite all this, he has ramped up a huge bill on his credit card and he has been giving me a tad less pocket money each month to try and pay it off.
I would really like just to keep my own wages and do my own thing but he tells me I am now legally obliged to pay a share of his credit card bill.
Do you think I have been a little naive here?
Or am I just A FECKIN EEJIT?
It may as well say “Vote Labour and we’ll protect Scotland from giant alien lizards”.
HURRAH!
At Last. Someone has the guts to stand up to those evil aliens we were threatened with during the ref. Now, albeit six month’s later, someone is prepared to stand up and defend us, defenceless wee Scotland, from those evil aliens. They get my vote!
What? 😉
You can NOT be SERIOUS!
What the hell do you mean we were never going to be attacked by aliens. I heard it myself, I’m sure we on the target list of these aliens. What do think I have been doing these last six month’s … buying tin hats for NOTHING! 😀
The Rev is correct, FFA is not going to be on the table. The Rev also understands that FFA would be a bad deal for Holyrood because it would force them to accept a share of expenditure that they wouldn’t be in control of.
If you look back at the debates Nicola Sturgeon never actually brought up FFA, the question was posed to her. It remains to be seen what the SNP’s manifesto will contain, if it does contain a desire for FFA then I think it is reasonable to question them on it even if it will never become a reality.
But I honestly have to ask where the rest of you get your information from in relation to Scotland’s current economic situation. And note I’m not talking about the projections from the IFS, I’m talking about the Scottish Government’s own figures published each year.
@Sinky
The Business for Scotland article you link to does not in any shape or form explain away the projected £7.6 billion deficit, it just doesn’t.
@Edmund
The UK and Scotland both have deficits, but Scotland’s deficit is basically bigger than the UK’s and the £7.6 billion is what the difference is projected to be based on % of GDP. For the year 2013-2014 Scotland’s deficit difference against the UK was just under £4 billion. The fall in oil & gas revenue for 2014-2015 is projected to increase this deficit difference to the fabled £7.6 billion, and unless the price of oil increases it “could” remain at £7.6 billion if nothing else changed in Scotland’s economy.
@Aceldo Atthis
The 7.6 Billion scare is very easy to rebut
Really? Okay go on then, give us your rebuttal? All you could really say is that the figures for 2014-2015 haven’t been reported yet and we don’t know what they’ll say. We do know that the revenue from oil & gas will fall but we don’t know by how much. Is there any other part of Scotland’s economy that you reckon will improve the figures from those reported on for 2013-2014?
Once more here is the executive summary from the Scottish Government’s expenditure and revenue report for the year 2013-2014 (throughout which the price of oil was over $100)
Total Public Sector Revenue 2013-14:
Scottish onshore revenue was estimated as £50.0 billion (8.1 per cent of UK onshore revenue). This represents £9,400 per person, £300 less than the UK average;
Including a population share of North Sea revenue, the estimate is £50.4 billion (8.1 per cent of UK). This represents £9,400 per person, £300 less than the UK average.
Including an illustrative geographic share of North Sea revenue, total public sector revenue is estimated at £54.0 billion (8.6 per cent of UK public sector revenue). This represents £10,100 per person, £400 more than the UK average.
Total Public Sector Expenditure 2013-14
Total expenditure for the benefit of Scotland by the Scottish Government, UK Government, and all other parts of the public sector was £66.4 billion. This is equivalent to 9.2 per cent of total UK public sector expenditure, and £12,500 per head.
Current Budget Balance 2013-14
This is the difference between current revenue and current expenditure (i.e. excluding capital investment). The current budget balance:
Excluding North Sea revenue, was a deficit of £13.8 billion (10.3 per cent of GDP).
Including a population share of North Sea revenue, was a deficit of £13.4 billion (9.8 per cent of GDP).
Including an illustrative geographic share of North Sea revenue, was a deficit of £9.8 billion (6.4 per cent of GDP).
For the UK, was a deficit of £71.5 billion (4.1 per cent of GDP)
Net Fiscal Balance 2013-14
This is the difference between current revenue and total public sector expenditure including capital investment. The net fiscal balance:
Excluding North Sea revenue, was a deficit of £16.4 billion (12.2 per cent of GDP).
Including a population share of North Sea revenue, was a deficit of £16.0 billion (11.7 per cent of GDP).
Including an illustrative geographic share of North Sea revenue, was a deficit of £12.4 billion (8.1 per cent of GDP).
For the UK, was a deficit of 97.3 billion (5.6 per cent of GDP).
The big scary numbers are at the end, the % GDP differences between Scotland and the UK. It is this difference that Scotland has to make up. Under FFA Holyrood *could* negotiate different expenditure being attributed to Scotland (there must be room for some of the expenditure in the report that attributed to Scotland to be reduced). Holyrood could also choose to cut spending itself. Holyrood could choose to increase taxes.
But when SNP politicians say that Holyrood could implement policies that would grow Scotland’s economy to bridge any deficit gap they are suggesting an economic growth that would far exceed any notion of growth that any Western economy has came remotely close to.
You’re all missing the point a bit. All these explanations about dodgy figures and alleged missing VAT and supposed increases in revenue sound shite to the general public. They sound like evasions of the question, and they are.
What the SNP needs is a simple, punchy one-line answer that kills the argument, and it’s easy: “We would not vote for any FFA settlement that disadvantaged Scotland”.
Until they say that, and say it often, they’re going to keep getting tormented over this, and rightly so. It’s hideously inept politics from a party that’s usually so, well, ept.
@Rev Stu
(In a better world the SNP could rely on the media to do its job properly and simply ask the leaders of each Unionist party “Would you vote for FFA or not?”, thereby killing the issue stone dead, but we don’t live in that world and the sooner Nicola Sturgeon and her team accept the fact the better the election will go for them.)
How do you know this is what they are thinking? Could there be other possible motives? I don’t think the SNP leadership trusts the MSM at all.
“Surely any backtracking from the nationalists now will only be seen as an omission”
It’s not backtracking to say “We wouldn’t vote for it if it disadvantaged Scotland”. You can legitimately get away with that as a clarification of something said in the heat of a hectoring, shouty debate.
O/T
Anyone know the truth about this smear?
http://www.libdemvoice.org/thats-not-how-we-used-to-do-politics-in-the-highlands-snp-candidate-takes-supporters-on-aggressive-visit-to-charles-kennedys-office-45490.html
“What would happen if the Tories turned round and voted for it as part of their EVEL plans?”
The SNP would be in a sticky spot. Which is why they need to make clear now that they’d only do so if it didn’t disadvantage Scotland.
liz says:
15 April, 2015 at 9:44 pm
Stuart Hosie managed to get some good info here.
http://www.facebook.com/paul.jennings.90281/videos/o.8259177988/10153327789968816/?type=2&theater
He certainly did. Well done, Stuart Hosie.
Nailed it!
I actually felt slightly sorry for Murphy the other day when he was made to look an utter cunt by Balls and that other chap from Labour in England, who said he had bugger all to do with the Labour budget or Treasury Dept.
However, having got over that quite quickly, I want to see him completely humiliated for his lies against my country. I also want to see the BBC in my country metaphorically destroyed and sent back to England and The Daily Record put out of business.
They all openly conspire against my Country to keep it down.
Put simply…
even if it exists in its own right… as an actual “bill” we have to pay…
The so called black hole of £7.6 billion is just our share of the minimum repayment to the previous payment plan.
It has already been factored into forecasts. If the “bill” is presented against a different budget it will be in breach of a multiparty agreement.
@Rev Stu
What the SNP needs is a simple, punchy one-line answer that kills the argument, and it’s easy: “We would not vote for any FFA settlement that disadvantaged Scotland”.
Until they say that, and say it often, they’re going to keep getting tormented over this, and rightly so. It’s hideously inept politics from a party that’s usually so, well, ept.
Have you listened to Ivan McKee* on what Alex Salmond has been writing about in regards to FFA (*on Michael Greenwell’s blog)?
Black hole pah!- this is not a new black hole this the fiscal hole we live with as passed to us by Westminster.
England has a similar black hole, Wales too. Westminster borrows to cover these black holes. With Full Fiscal Autonomy we would do the borrowing, that’s all. So what is difficult to explain about Full Fiscal Autonomy?
@Rev Stu
The SNP would be in a sticky spot. Which is why they need to make clear now that they’d only do so if it didn’t disadvantage Scotland.
Apparently that is the very thing Salmond has been arguing about in his book, in the epilogue.
Ta Rev honey – you are the sweetest xx
Check out this former Thatcher henchman and Lord’s trougher for life ofcourse.
Barnett is going to be slashed, feel the love for Scotland, the sheer red and blue tory joy at the democracy they lied, threatened, bullied and begged Scotland to stay in and as usual, their raw hate for the most dangerous women in teamGB.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OLCfiIJ46IQ
Nice to see two old sparring goons chums again.
oil price up 5% just today
I am glad to see that the basic bottom lines on the issue is now being absorbed and expanded.
.
Any deficit we have is because we are trapped in a bust UK economy.
The UK deficit is huge. The UK national Debt is enormous.
Economic figures extrapolated from these facts are irrelevant to a independent Scottish economy which wouldn’t be subjected to the economic destruction of the UK “black hole”
If after 300 years of a union we are an economic basket case the union is a disaster.
Are we alone in the world too stupid to run our own economy?
Do you think insulting Scotland is a good idea?
It all comes down to our failure to date to establish with a significant proportion of our population that we are self supporting.
When we do so we win.
That is the fundamental challenge
We have painted a marvelous picture of the better country we would like to be. We must convince our people that we can afford to go for it.
U R G E N T!
Can everyone on here who is intending to vote PLEASE contact their local Electoral Registration Office to confirm that they are ACTUALLY still registered to vote on 7th May?
I have again contacted the office in Glasgow (for the 3rd time since January) and been told that I am not registered and have to apply (for a THIRD time)! This is after I was sent a letter from the Glasgow Electoral Registration Office a few weeks ago saying my postal vote application was registered and the form would be sent out.
What the hell is happening with this new individual registration system? 100,000 people have disappeared from the electoral register in Scotland since the referendum.
How many people are at present thinking they are registered, only to find out on 7th May that they can’t vote and are disenfranchised? I’m going to contact the press about this tomorrow morning.
DON’T LOSE YOUR RIGHT TO VOTE THROUGH INCOMPETENCE
SNP MPs will always do what’s best for Scotland.
Tricky. To shorten such a convoluted non issue.
FFA shortcomings in the short term are managable?
And preferred to the alternative of one tenth of the future liability of £2Trillion which is where the rUK is heading.
We will have avoided a future black hole of £10 billion, by the same figures.
Actually, maybe a wee peek into a black hole would be good for Labour. In alternative realities they may actually exist as a party of integrity.
@Rev
we wouldn’t vote for it if it disadvantaged Scotland
As much as I’d like to argue about FFA what you’re saying here is correct. This is fundamentally a political argument not an economic one as it will never actually happen. As long as a political argument can be articulated then the economic argument is irrelevant.
But it does say something for the SNP’s wider ambitions if they cannot foresee a scenario where they could run Scotland’s economy on their own.
“We suspect that ultimately the Scottish people aren’t so dim as to fall for Labour’s imaginary monster under the bed…”
Since more than half of them made the spectacularly huge mistake of voting No in the referendum, I can’t say I have the same faith in their ability to see the wool being pulled over their eyes.
Still, only time will tell. It usually does…
I see the Scotsman are trying to spin a story that Nicola has stepped back from FFA.
The SNP certainly have clarified that they think FFA is a process and point out that the modest Calman proposals have taken 8 years to implement from start to finish and that there is no FFA axe hanging over anyone’s head. This seems to be a response to Farage’s scrap Barnett pledge. The SNP have pointed out that under no detriment Barnett would remain until more fiscal powers were bedded into Holyrood and that this would not be an overnight process.
My view of the SNP’s handling of FFA is that they’ve got it spot-on. This is as much a political argument as an economic one. Labour latching at this paints them as the true heir of a negative and right-wing Better Together onslaught. It makes them sound like Tories talking Scotland down: “forget Independence, you’re not even fit to tax and spend”. They sound negative, they sound doom-laden, and frankly I think people do not believe these numbers. It is also very hard to make stick a financial black hole story at the same time as insisting the SNP will get nowhere near power.
No my feel is that the SNP are quite happy to ride this story out because it makes them look potent; a real threat. Labour are no longer talking about SNP being marginal. They’ve stopped talking about them being ignored by a minority Labour government. To achieve FFA you need power…Labour are talking them into power. And regardless of the economic merits of FFA the key point missed by Unionists is that maximum tax and spend powers devolved to Holyrood enjoys a serious popular mandate in Scotland. Sturgeon quite rightly highlights this as something people want whilst hammering home that Labour will out-Tory the Tories to deny the popular will.
Finally the REAL strategic error on this issue and the wider campaign has not been committed by the SNP. Labour are now being singularly identified with re-running a Tory flavoured Better Together campaign. The problem is that GE15 is multi-choice; not binary “Us v Them” two-way split. So any beneficial impact acquired from negative campaigning on FFA etc is defrayed across LabConLib electoral preferences. Meanwhile the SNP consolidates the 45%+ as the natural choice for home rulers at GE15. And it will be 45%+ as increasing numbers of disaffected Labour voters donate their franchise to the SNP perceived in this campaign, not for their stance on Independence, but as their role as Scotland’s Champion at Westminster FFA and all.
@ Liz
Yes tweet from ERS was dated for yesterday
@Dave McEwan Hill
Once more I ask you, what would be different? Scotland has revenue and expenditure. Using your understanding of economics can you enlighten us as to what you believe the expenditure and revenue of Scotland would be if it were free from the UK?
Can you give us basic numbers? Rough figures?
IMO There will never be a settlement within the UK which will be to Scotland’s benefit.
Of course there are Scots who ‘want their cake and eat it’. They want avoid what they see as the dangers of full responsibility and settle for FFA but still be under UK rule. This will never be allowed to happen! Pie in the sky over London.
We can take independence anytime, but we must be given devolution. Significant extra devolved powers will never be handed to us. The Unionists have had umpteen chances now to come up with Union-saving devolution and avoided so doing. DevoFA is as far as they will go.
Vote SNP, send a bus load of MPs south, and get this all out in the open and cleared up once and for all. They will not hand us DevoMax/FFA/Home Rule!
The demon of FFA needs exorcised.
Then we can move forward to the solution which will work – full independence.
Watch following reforms that iceland are considering with regard to its monetary system
https://youtu.be/2TMcGb3bW-k
it’s why I am a massive fan of a sovereign Scottish currency.
@Clootie,
it is that Lib-Dem nutter, sorry blogger, Caron Lyndsay.
Ignore – I don’t believe a thing she says…
She certainly does not like Wings!
🙂
Swinney and others have given explanations of the so called hole.
If SNP brought FFA into the arena, then they have a reason, which may not be clear right now, although it’s generating some good unionist bile just now.
If Salmond is talking about it, there’s a reason.
Just been to husting in Ardrossan we have nothing to worry about from UKIP if that’s the standard of candidate what an absolute numpty,and Christ I hate labour councillors jumped up nobodies with illusions of grandeur.
@Rev. Stuart Campbell says:
15 April, 2015 at 9:55 pm
..
What the SNP needs is a simple, punchy one-line answer that kills the argument, and it’s easy: “We would not vote for any FFA settlement that disadvantaged Scotland”.
That’s actually a VERY good suggestion.
Nicola did say she would vote for it, but it wasn’t made clear that it would be phased in gradually. Everything is up for negotiation if SNP holds the balance of power.
The biggest danger I see is overplaying your hand and ending up with nothing, if Project Fear 2 kicks in.
I think the best way to go is to negotiate for Devo-Max to be delivered in stages.
First stage could be beefing up the useless Smith proposals where we take a big Barnett hit with little competitive powers to make up the difference.
Corporation tax and CGT would be decent additions, that could actually attract business growth and high quality jobs.
FULL fiscal autonomy can wait a little longer until oil revenues recover or the onshore economy grows.
Corporation tax is a very hard one to argue against as Northern Ireland is in line for it.
Re IFS missing out VAT, from their own paper November 2012 (Scottish independence: the fiscal context):
“Of these, by far the most significant is VAT, which alone generates 18.9% of Scottish public revenue – the second-highest share of all individual taxes.”
Memories are, err, I forget, oh, short, it seems, in the IFS, if they’ve forgotten nearly one-fifth of individual Scottish revenue. Ah well.
Colin Rippey
The Scottish Deficit and Debt broadly speaking proportionally mirror that of the UK.
The current election is about how we all get out of this lab/con/dem created mess. Let’s never forget who put us in this situation!!!The snp have said let’s end austerity measures now as this is hitting/hurting the vast majority of the population except the very well to do. That is what people are being asked to vote on, not the snp’s views on full fiscal autonomy.
However, this is becoming the snp’s “which currency” referendum moment which they never really dug themselves out of. There needs to be continuing crisp clear reminders of what the only economic priority is now and who put us all in this economic pit in the first place and there has to be a refusal to be drawn in to a debate on FFA because of its current irrelevance whilst pointing out Scotland is only in the exact same position as the rest of the UK and a reminder here too that Scotland’s situation has been because of the WM governments fiscal incompetence.
SNP please up your game on this – it’s good to be positive but sometimes the opposition’s incompetence and lies have to be laid bare too!!!!
I have to say I strongly agree with Stu’s comments. The SNP must make a strong(er) case that we can’t do any worse than the position we are in.
The ideological battle is being won.
The economic battle is in the balance but we should have enough in the locker to win it easily. Austerity does not work. Just need to get the party line sorted out (not enough mention of UK national debt!)
The political battle is the hardest to win in my humble opinion as the SNP are just not nasty (unlike most other parties and a highly destructive media). SNP politicians seem to have far more integrity. Hope it stays that way and the new politics sticks to how we can make things better for everyone.
Keep the heid everyone!
Is this the black hole that Unionist use to power their time machine? Or the black hole caused by London’s piss poor economic management, as well as shameless waste and reckless misadventure, especially liberal interventionism (imperialism in old speak, or bombing brown people back to the stone age, in the name of peace – a personal favourite of Jim Murphy and the Henry Jackson Society)?
Sorry, I forgot we have moved on, haven’t we?
@Marie clark says: 15 April, 2015 at 8:15 pm:
“I seem to remember from just the other day that the £7.6bn figure was wrong, It had been miscalculated and had been withdrawn. Or maybe it’s me getting mixed up. Who knows amongst all this crap.”
No, Marie, your not mixed up. They have owned up to have got it wrong but that’s no big deal for I’m hard put to remember any of their predictions that have been anything close to correct. As anyone with even basic arithmetic and common sense knows the Establishment accountancy has always been more, “Creative Accountancy”, than accurate.
Through the years I’ve come across so many, “Nice Little Earners”, for the Treasury involving ripping Scotland off that I’d be hard put to it to remember them all. There can hardly be an item on the books of UK & co. that could pass a decent Forensic Accountancy check.
From claiming Scottish Oil & gas revenues as from Extra-Regio-Territory, to amalgamating the Scottish Crown Estate Profits along with the Kingdom of England Crown Estates. Note that when it comes to those Crown Estates the fact that the English Crown Estates include those of both Wales & N. Ireland but when it comes to Being a United Kingdom they called N. Ireland a Kingdom for the 1800/1 Treaty of Union.
There is always the advantage given to the English Kingdom in all things – it’s been a fiddle since they claimed there was a Union of The Crowns in 1603 but the truth was the two kingdoms, realms and crowns remained independent. Which is exactly why they engineered and forced a Treaty of Union in 1706/7 and continued with fighting a war against, what they wrongly called a Jacobite Rebellion, from 1688 till 1745 even when the Scots Kingdom was still independent and thus couldn’t rebel against a monarch not their own. Not to mention that it continued from 1706/7, after the Treaty of Union, until 1745.
Much of the Scottish deficit is money spent in England by Westminster. The numbers are misleading.
@Rev
Anyway, the main thing is that the £7.6 billion doesn’t exist.
It’s as real a figure as comparing the difference in deficit between Germany and the UK, and saying the UK is £100 billion worse off, or would be £100 billion better off if it became a Land of Germany. What the IFS was doing was comparing the UK’s projected deficit of 4% (including selling off the banks by the way), with Scotland’s of 8.6%.
For comparison, according to GERS the deficit for Scotland in 2013-4 was 8.1%, 2014-15 projected 8.6%, 2015-16 also 8.6%. All FFA would do is make GERS real, rather than illustrative, and Scotland would have to borrow the money, rather than the UK on our behalf. GERS still accounts for the interest, it might be perhaps 0.5% – 1% higher rate, that’s all – or 0% if Scotland borrowed via the UK with its rate, which depdnes on the negotiations and deal of FFA. Hosie was wrong I’m afraid, and Salmond missed the point. The only thing is if the SNP have been setting a trap for Labour.
As for Scotland getting FFA over 2015-2020, I disagree. I think there’s a very real chance we’ll get it as the price of propping up Labour.
O&T The Electoral Commission is encouraging expats to vote in this year’s crucial General Election. If you have moved abroad from the UK in the last 15 years, you should be eligible to cast your vote.
Apparently there are upto 2 million of them…
Oh! For heaven’s sake. Will you listen to that idiot UKIP guy on STV on about the Barnett Formula who hasn’t got the slightest clue of what the Barnett Formula does. Glad to see STV holding his feet to the fire.
The numptie is blethering absolute bloody balderdash. Any decent MSP could tie the numptie in knots.
I trust Bowie, McCartney, Alsop, Izzard, et al, but especially Rowling, will reach into their fat bank accounts to fill the gap when Westminster reduces the Barnett Formula to keep Scotland poor, so passionate were they about Scotland staying in the UK under its control.
BTW I watched Clegg being interviewed on C4 News and he was trying to scaremonger by saying the SNP and UKIP would cause the major parties to dance to their tunes. Which pretty much just emphasised how useless the LibDems have been which I doubt was his intention. But basically his complaint was that other minor parties have more balls than his does.
Someone please buy Coburn a new handkerchief for his suit pocket. He’s got the same on tonight on Scotland Tonight as he’s had in at least the last 2 interviews I’ve seen. Oh and Ponsonby is taking him apart effortlessly.
Onwards at 10.35
You present a recipe for never ending slicing of the sausage that would put independence back decades if not forever.
You perhaps don’t understand politics (or maybe you do?)
Colin Rippey at 10.28
I could present dozens of different scenarios,depending on dozens of different forecasts,dependent of a host of different opinions none of which make a case for or against independence.
There is nothing our opponents like better that trading figures and nothing likelier to turn out voters off.
However our GDP and GNP that place us higher up the tables than the UK as a whole though well behind the Nordic countries, Iceland, Ireland (yes Ireland) and our GERS figures provide all the evidence that is required to establish that a Scotland sensibly run is just as viable,and in fact rather more viable than comparable countries. During the referendum campaign the world’s most respected rating agencies pointed out that Scotland was better off than the UK as a whole but this got buried by our media -as it always will.
The fundamental economic facts about Scotland have to be presented in a very basic form which can trump complicated distortions presented by our opponents (which the SNP has allowed it self to get diverted into arguing about)
The number of Scots who don’t know that on a per capita basis they pay more tax than the UK average, more than enough to pay for all the running of the country, is surprising and damaging. That’s the kind of stuff we should be working on.
Aye well the thing that really came across to me about cleggs ramblings was his admission that the liberal democrats are now so small a party he puts them in the same bracket as SNP and UKIP.
To differ slightly from Stu I think the FFA stuff is a very deliberate whipping of the Vow liars by the SNP who know very well there is no chance of us getting it – and don’t actually want it.
The result on May 7th will determine where we go from there – and until we know what we get embarrassing the unionists interim will do for me
Grouse are you monstoring Rowling again. Remember Darling said we were evil cybernats for picking on a multi millionaire.
Meanwhile thousands queue at food banks and posh English woman sits and counts down in her mansion. I am just like you , I was a single mother. Aye right did she have to live in the West wing of the mansion when she a single mother!
Sorry for going O/T here but I’ve just seen Faisal Islam interview the leader of the Lib Dems, oh what’s his name again?
Any way I am sure I heard whatishisname say in response to a question from Faisal that he would ignore the democratically elected politicians from Scotland!
I hope I heard wrong but really if he did in fact confirm/imply that the S.N.P. M.P.’s from Scotland are to be ignored by Westminster then that is NOT very Liberal NOR is it very Democratic!
@Vince
I respectably disagree that Scotland’s deficit proportionally mirrors that of the UK. There’s a 2.5% GDP difference from the most recently reported figures and that is quite a large gap in deficit terms.
You’re right in that you could blame Westminster for Scotland’s current economic situation as it is Westminster who really control the economy despite large sections of areas being devolved.
But when you argue for a change to the status quo I think you have to come up with a strategy that presents your changes in such a way as to at least avoid making the situation worse. That has not been articulated yet and it is difficult to envisage how it could be even presented to appear as being no worse.
Holyrood “could” improve things no doubt, there’s always ways to increase revenue such as raise taxes (and I wonder if anyone who votes SNP would be against raising taxes really). Holyrood could also (maybe) secure a borrowing arrangement with the rUK (maybe paying a higher interest rate).
I know a lot of people truly believe that Scotland deciding for Scotland alone would make the economy so much better, the economy would not be shackled to damaging Westminster policies. The thing is, has anyone really provided any details on this? Is it feasible? I think people totally overestimate the influence a government can really have on a modern economy. The world is so intertwined nowadays that every economy is linked and affects each other.
@Lollysmum Thanks will get that info spread. Cant believe the shambles this is turning out to be
@Dave McEwan Hill
Ahhhh, dozens of scenarios. Okay.
You believe the GERS report presents a case that Scotland is viable than comparable countries. Who would you consider these compatible countries to be?
Colin Rippey: a large part of the deficit is the cost of welfare. This could be brought down with no detriment to the recipients if we had FFA simply by policy changes. For instance, working tax credit could be reduced by obliging corporate employers like Starbucks to pay a living wage. Housing benefit could be reduced by imposing private sector rent controls. If we act to keep the cost of living down for the low paid plus increase the pay of the low paid, even marginally, it could result in quite a substantial reduction in the cost of welfare provision and thus the size of the deficit. PS you still haven’t answered me about why FFA would mean we only got a share of our oil and gas revenues.
The world is so intertwined nowadays that every economy is linked and affects each other.
Scandinavia rubs along “linked and intertwined” and Norway has stuff like zero teenage unemployment, high wages, huge heavy industry sector, giant state oil pension funds, no Trident, NO food banks, affordable housing for all AND Norway also has a deficit.
But Scotland is owned and run by red and blue tory world.
So give it up Colin Rippey says.
@JimNotMurphy says: 15 April, 2015 at 8:51 pm:
“OK, maybe I’m over simplifying things here … “
Nope! That’s the thing about calculations. It doesn’t matter it you are adding 1+1 or 100bn+100Bn it is still simple arithmetic. As for the rest of your points the claimed sum has been admitted to have been wrong as they forgot to count Scottish VAT returns into their calculations and that VAT is a considerable sum. It also beggars the question, “What else have they missed out”? Have they included the correct Road Fuel Duty? What of the Betting Tax? Maybe the Aggregates Levy?. There’s history of that being missed. The full sum claimed as a deficit is thus well down on their original figure.
Anyway, the old favourite rip off still remains – Oil & Gas revenues are 95% from Scottish Territory but they only credit Scotland with having made 8.4% of that revenue and they don’t even give it to us – its just a credit in the sense of, “Oh! Well I suppose we could say you earned 8.4% of our UK Oil & gas revenues”.
I could reel off many other scams like the total fines, both court and on-the-spot, paid in Scotland’s independent court system goes directly to the Treasury and the Charges for Electricity Grid connation that are charged in Scotland but paid as subsidy in England, (around £100 Million per annum).
Get the picture now, JimNotMutphy?
Financial Times front page tomorrow reporting that IMF state that UK cannot balance the books until 2020 at least.
@Colin Rippley,
I think you do not really understand what Scottish Independence is all about.
It is not about Economics.
It is about Democracy – pure and simple – that is all.
Colin Rippey, yeah blah bkah blah. Of course its all ‘could’ , that’s where we are. Not really sure what concrete answers you’re looking for, theyre probably not there.
@Robert Peffers – I have been trying to find the admission of a VAT error at the institute of fiscal studies – can you send a link?
Stu, I think (re FFA) if the SNP said they wouldn’t vote for it if it disadvantaged Scotland, opponents would just say: it disadvantages Scotland and your whole raison de’etre is wrong.
Colin Rippey
Does your magic ball tell you what direction an independent Scotland would take. Thought not. Got any more whataboutery about whataboutery?
Jings my brain is sore but I agree that the question is “We would not vote for any FFA settlement that disadvantaged Scotland”.
However I am more distracted in wondering just where is Jim Murphy? Hasn’t been on the telly for ages. Feart?
@Harry McAye says: 15 April, 2015 at 9:02 pm:
“There was an excellent article in yesterday’s National with Stewart Hosie’s comments on the £7.6 billion nonsense. Explained the non-story very clearly for the layman I thought.”
Stewart Hosie is indeed a very clear, effective and competent person. I remember well his demolition job on Baron George Robertson at Abertay Uni. A real joy to watch :-
http://munguinsrepublic.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/independence-debate-at-abertay.html
Heedtracker, actually (sorry to disillusion you) Norway does have foodbanks. I was there last September and watched a news item on it. But I think they might not be being used by Norwegians, but rather by illegal immigrants who don’t qualify for welfare and aren’t entitled to work either.
Colin Rippey at 11.18
You are dong it again.We don’t want to be independent to continue running our economy as it is presently run.
Present Scottish figures are irrelevant.
The represent a number of results of being part of a broke UK economy.
All that is relevant is how we decide to spend our resources when we are independent.
This will be very different indeed.
I wont be drawn into debating the results to Scotland trapped in the massive mismanagement of the UK economy
I’d enjoy a debate about how we will do things differently and better.
That’s what our people need to be engaged in
Colin Rippey,
The SNP should be concentrating its arguments on the move away from austerity. We all know that if our own business is struggling we can cut our costs to help our survival but we have to suffer some, sometimes gross pain to allow this to happen. This pain has been felt by many now for the best part of a decade. The alternative is to go to our bank manager, borrow and try to grow our business by extending our premises and/or taking on new production/sales/design employees and/or implementing R and D ideas and/or bringing in extra stock and/or improving/increasing our marketing. This as a macro as opposed to my micro example is what the SNP are advocating and the public like this idea.
FFA is a red herring at the moment. It can only be given to Scotland by Westminster and by parties who do not want to offer it? Why you might ask? For Scotland’s sake or for the UK’s sake. I know what my answer to that is.
However, unless the SNP has a master plan that I can’t see at the moment ( except in so far as it opens the debate to steps towards FFA if they share minority power with the labour party) they should dispel this discussion as swiftly as possible by quite simply saying that broadly speaking the Scottish economy is as strong/weak as the rUK economy as best we can all see at the moment and that if there is a move to FFA it will be done sensibly as a joint negotation with our power sharing partner.
Lesley-Anne says:
15 April, 2015 at 11:15 pm
I hope I heard wrong but really if he did in fact confirm/imply that the S.N.P. M.P.’s from Scotland are to be ignored by Westminster then that is NOT very Liberal NOR is it very Democratic!
Aye, but it is very unionist.
Dear Hillary Rodham Clinton
I wish you well as a candidate for president 2016.Im running that same year to be Ist minister of Scotland.Iowa caucuses an Glasgow are chalk & cheese.I don’t believe in Full Fiscal Autonomy,unless it’s Britain holding the purse strings.Do you think I could sell this idea to the Land of the Free.
Yours sincerely
Jim for Scotland Murphy
Murphy insisting that Shoaib is not a member of the Labour Party, but not only did the DR show him front page with Labour happily accepting him, but David Clegg wrote on twitter that he had photocopies of the application and a letter of resignation from the SNP, signed by Mr Shoaib.
Thanks for that Luigi. I thought I had missed a wee bit off the end. 😀
OK, I’m a bit of a sadist. 🙂
Jim Murphy digging a deeper hole!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDG2HgXNVkU
@ Jim Murphy
When are you going to get your story straight, sorry London’s story?
O/T — Satire is back with the return of revamped Spitting Image style, witty but don’t know how it will affect campaign especially non political types which i guess may be the demographic watching
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0em4LAahPs
SNP ‘outstrip Labour in intelligence and strategy’, says Johann Lamont’s former advisor
Paul Sinclair said Scottish Labour “looks lightweight” and “doesn’t seem to know what it is for” before branding it “a party of commentators rather than competence”.
http://tinyurl.com/k7bsl4j
@Dave McEwan Hill says:
15 April, 2015 at 11:03 pm
Onwards at 10.35
You present a recipe for never ending slicing of the sausage that would put independence back decades if not forever.
You perhaps don’t understand politics (or maybe you do?)
—————-
I know you have an ‘all or nothing’ fundamentalist approach to independence, but you haven’t made a case in explaining why anything would be different if we had another referendum any time soon.
We just had a YES-NO referendum and we lost by 10 points. The main reason was fear about the economy, and that was before oil prices took a fall. We have to accept that and do something about that – not just stick our heads in the sand.
Perhaps another Tory government might change some minds, but not enough IMO.
The main point about further devolution is that it DEMONSTRATES to a degree that Scotland can raise and spend its own revenues, not just spend a block grant.
It’s all very well just telling No voters we would be more successful, but they are just taking our word against others. Successful use of further devolved powers actually sets a precedent.
In any case, Nicola isn’t going to call a new referendum soon – that will need another win at Holyrood.
The public mood seems to be: give extra powers a chance first. If we don’t get anything worthwhile then at least the London parties will have shown they have no intention of delivering that. And they don’t. Devo-max or FFA would never be granted because it is too close to independence.
All the SNP can realistically do is keep up the pressure for stronger devolution if they hold the balance of power. And each power devolved is a step closer.
@bookie from hell says: 15 April, 2015 at 10:12 pm:
“oil price up 5% just today”
So what, bookie from hell?
As all the revenues from oil & gas goes directly to The Treasury and, being funded by a Block Grant that is set by the Barnett Formula (+ or – Consequentials), the price of oil neither adds nor subtracts from/to Scottish funding.
It thus only has effect upon the United Kingdom, (a.k.a. England’s), income.
Why should we bother? We are not getting FFA and they really cannot alter the Barnett Formula as it is based entirely upon the costs of the devolved functions Westminster grants us but calculated against the per capita value Englanders get via the Westminster Ministries that provide those functions in England that are now devolved to Scotland.
Let Westminster bother about the oil & gas prices. It is entirely their worry.
To JR ;Check Enigma Video on” Best Video Scottish Vote Rigging by MI5″.
Think what you like on you tube
I believe that the SNP should be asking for FFA as a result of any agreement with the Labour Party.
We may not get it but even if the IFS forecasts were proved to be correct and Scotlands borrowing was a greater percentage of GDP than the rUK for a while. Then so what.
If your ultimate goal is Independence, then surely that means standing on your own two feet no matter the financial circumstances?
It is interesting that is ONLY this year that our deficit/GDP ratio would have been greater than rUK yet for the previous 34 it would have been less and often in surplus.
We have to take the rough with the smooth, not going for maximum powers now I see as being a failure, how often will this opportunity come around. Not that often is my guess and in fact may never occur again.
Strike while the irons hot, or see progress towards Independence slip away. If Independence is the goal then you MUST accept from then on you are on your own.
Just go for it.
If FFA for Scotland would benefit Westminster financially and cost Scotland we would be in line for it now,or already have it.
The FT ran a good article in Feb 2014 showing that even without a drop of oil allocated to Scotland our deficit was the same as UK give or take 2 or 3 %,so there is no major deficit bigger than the one without FFA.
So when Labours latest big lie of the 7 bln black hole is exposed,they will be punished in the polls as they seem to have been after ‘the biggest party’ and ‘Frenchgate’ lies were exposed.
@Cadogan Enright says: 15 April, 2015 at 11:33 pm:
” … I have been trying to find the admission of a VAT error at the institute of fiscal studies – can you send a link?”
The report was in the Herald but I can’t find in now. However there is a comment about it by Big Jock in Newsnet Scot Here –
http://newsnet.scot/2015/04/ffs-whats-going-on-in-the-land-of-full-fiscal-autonomy/
I’m really whacked now and on my way to bed. You might try the Herald on-line. It may still be on there. I’m now unsubscribes so can’t oblige.
Mind you I’m not surprised the reports all seem to have vanished as this is standard MSM Broadcasters usual way of hiding the bad things.
Here’s Bernard Ponsonby’s interview with David Coburn.
http://player.stv.tv/programmes/scotland-tonight/2015-04-15-2230/
Why oh why do STV put comedy programmes on so late?
The fun begins at 10m 45s.
I’m confused. As far as I understand it we are not getting all tax collection in Scotland by a long chalk. And we are not getting all spending either.
Robert Peffers says @ 11.42pm
“Stewart Hosie is indeed a very clear, effective and competent person. I remember well his demolition job on Baron George Robertson at Abertay Uni. A real joy to watch :-”
He didn’t just demolish Robertson
he took him apart like a kid trashing a Lego house. 🙂
It seems to me that the SNP are arguing for FFA as soon as possible. I fully take the point that it is not going to happen, but that does not remove the need to demonstrate that it is a workable proposition in principle. And that is what the IFS seeks to undermine.
As it happens I think there would be difficulties with FFA, and we should not close our eyes to the problems. FFA is not independence, and independence without a sovereign currency would also be problematic, IMO. FFA would suffer from the same problems, but in spades.
That is not to say that the policy is wrong, however. It only means that the settlement would have to be carefully negotiated so as to ensure that the downside is met.
In the first place the IFS calculation is based on the OBR projections. We need not let those detain us, because the OBR’s track record on forecasting is laughable.(for example they forecast oil revenue at £2.6 billion in December, but now estimates £700 million: I question whether this can be seen as a forecast at all, since a forecast ought to be rather more robust over time than that). Nor is the OBR in any sense independent, which is the impression given, and broadly accepted by the general public, I think. Its task is to make forecasts on the basis of government policy decisions: it has no remit to consider and make forecasts on any other policy basis. It follows that whatever it says founds on the aims and ideology of the coalition, at present. It cannot say anything about what the outcomes would be if different decisions were taken.
The IFS is not constrained in that way, but its report is based on the OBR projections, and so it has voluntarily adopted the same approach. This is compounded in the case of the IFS because in previous papers it assumes a requirement to reduce the debt and deficit. All it has to say is predicated on that assumption, but there is no reason at all to accept that assumption. If an argument is built on false premises it can be ever so logical in its superstructure: but its conclusions will still be wrong.
Which brings me to the real problem with FFA: it will not be FFA, on any conceivable settlement which might be reached. That is because it is beyond belief that our plutocrats will not place constraints on borrowing so long as Scotland remains a part of the UK. We can take that for granted, because the argument was much rehearsed during the referendum campaign: all that scaremongering about CU and the threat that rUK would be liable for Scottish debt should the SG prove “irresponsible” in that area. Note the unquestioned assumption that borrowing is a bad thing in and of itself. That is not true, but it is the consensus position of all Westminster parties and I doubt they will agree to any settlement which allows the SG to take a different view.
It is therefore essential for the SNP, if it is indeed intent on pursuing the goal of FFA, to make it clear exactly what is meant: i.e. absolute control over all economic matters, with an agreed payment for defence and foreign affairs made to the Westminster government each year. And no other interference. As the OP says, that will never be granted and it is the reason that we must achieve independence in the longer term.
It is more likely that we will get some devolved powers, and that is where Mr Salmond’s argument comes in: Smith has agreed that any such settlement will not be to the detriment of either party: and that has to be guaranteed.
Turning to the IFS projection of a deficit of £7.6 billion ( I have not seen any revision to that figure based on the omission of VAT, so I will not adjust on that basis).
Last year Scotland raised some £54 billion in revenue, when a geographic share of oil is included: and £50 billion if oil is completely excluded. (GERS 2013/14)
From the same source the total spend in the same year was estimated at £66 billion, and that included both identifiable expenditure (that which can be reasonably attributed as spend for Scotland) and non-identifiable expenditure (that which is spent for the benefit of the whole UK and which is normally attributed to Scotland on a population basis). The deficit is in fact £12 billion, and is projected to rise to £13.6 billion. The £7.6 billion figure represents the excess deficit in Scotland, over and above the deficit for the whole UK, according to this way of making the calculation. It is the cash figure derived from expressing a higher budget deficit as a % of GDP
Does this matter? Well the MSM would have us believe that it does. But the first thing to note is that there are some questionable figures in there. As others have noted GERS accepts that the UK deficit in 2013/14 was 5.6% of GDP, compared to 8.1% in Scotland including oil revenue. But the UK figure is reduced by the sale of family silver (in this case Royal Mail) and by asset transfers: and without that the deficit is 6.5%: still lower, but not so much.
General government deficit and debt estimates for the calendar year 2012 were affected by the transfer of the Royal Mail Pension Plan assets. This reduced the deficit by £28.0 billion and had the same impact on the financial year 2012/13. The asset purchase facility transfers from the Bank of England in the calendar year 2013 reduced the deficit by £18.6 billion (for the 2012/13 financial year the reduction was £6.4 billion).
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/psa/eu-government-debt-and-deficit-returns/march-2014/stb—march-2014.html
Second, the UK deficit has reduced, but by less than the onshore deficit in Scotland, according to the IFS report. This, it says, is because government spending in Scotland has fallen by more than it has fallen in the UK. So it appears that Scotland has suffered more “austerity” than the rest of the UK. The report does not specify how much more austerity but it notes that government spending in Scotland fell by 4.2% in real terms between 2012/13 and 2013/14. Since I take the view that austerity by its very nature harms economic growth it is no surprise to note that the growth in onshore revenues was slower in Scotland than in the UK. That is precisely what you would expect. It is also what Mr Osborne discovered in 2012, when he reversed his austerity agenda in face of a worsening position.
The third point is a little confusing (to me, anyway). The IFS has stated that ” Of course the decline in North Sea Revenues is not helpful to the UK public finances either. But because most revenues are estimated to come from the Scottish portion of the North Sea…a fall in this revenue stream has a much larger impact on Scotland’s fiscal position” . As Robert Peffer points out, Scotland does not currently get any of that revenue, so it is a little hard to understand how they arrive at that conclusion. I say that because the figures used for the UK as comparison leave out one off transactions which have a major impact on the deficit but somehow they are not so concerned about that.
In 2013-14 the UK government had a deficit of £126 billion, (including the asset transfers (QE) referred to in the link above and left out of the reported figure of £107.7 billion), which was 7.6% of GDP. Oil revenues were £4 billion, so the deficit excluding oil was £129 billion, or 7.8% of GDP. That compares with the IFS report of 8.1% of GDP as deficit in Scotland that year. The difference they are concerned about has largely disappeared. Yet I see no reason to leave a one-off £18 billion windfall out of the uk figures, for that is not going to be repeated, presumably. So far as I can tell neither that, nor the Royal mail sale in the previous year, are in any way attributed to the Scottish revenue side: but if they were, say on a population basis, it would surely be true to say it “has a much larger impact on Scotland’s fiscal position”
Since the OBR figures do not include these receipts when reporting the deficit to date, I have no reason to suppose that their forecast includes the loss of them in the future. So again I have no reason to accept their projections on this occasion. But I have not time now to check that aspect so if I am wrong I would be grateful if someone can point that out.
Anyway, the cause for concern was not the size of the deficit per se, but the difference in the size of it between Scotland and the UK. If I am correct in what I say above, that has arguably vanished, and if that is true then those who were previously arguing that this is merely Scotland’s share of the total deficit seem to be correct. Contrary to the IFS position
Unfortunately Stewart, you are right , the danger is not in what the Labour party will do , but what the SNP will not do. If only the press would treat this piece of fantasy for what it is then Labour would be the subject of derision , but they wont. This so called Deficit apportionment to Scotland is only there BECAUSE we are part of the UK and if we either attain independence or even Full fiscal autonomy then a completely different set of circumstances will at that time prevail ,some years down the line. It is a budget deficit you dummies and can only exist alongside a budget.
If 1.6 million people voted for scary independence recently , they are hardly likely to be frightened by scary FFA.
Just sayin.
Can anyone remember a senior labour politician saying the IFS was nothing more than a Tory think tank or words to that effect?
All this talk of Scotland being too poor is just to put us on the back foot.
They have some cheek after robbing us of 300 billion in oil revenues.
We should be talking about reparations to compensate for no oil fund being set up.
@Vince
BINGO – I like it Vince – clear statement of fact and pure irrelevance at this stage.
@Vince says:
– 10.36 BINGO – ‘nough said !!
Calgacus says:
“robbing us of 300 billion in oil revenues.
We should be talking about reparations to compensate for no oil fund being set up.”
Indeed. I hope at some point we get a chance to play hard ball!
Any changes to the fiscal situation will involve negotiations. Either (the unlikely) FFA or full independence horse trading needs to take account of the way Scotland has been pouring in money for decades. Scotland may have a national debt, but it’s a lot less than our population share of the UK’s! However all calculation include Scotland paying interest on debt we didn’t run up.
Similarly our money, and debt raised in our name, has been spent elsewhere … big projects down south.
I take all figures quoted as irrelevant and unrepresentative. Our real position is much stronger. And even stronger, with a change of direction.
Interesting article on RT today…
http://rt.com/uk/250105-scotland-referendum-surveillance-assange/
FFA (All but Defence & Foreign Policy) or Full Independence ?
In line with what most have said on this FFA is not on offer at this point ‘from anyone’ (apart from Gordon Brown who then quickly drew back from home rule when the No vote was secured).
The SNP should simply point out;
Since we appear to be in a disadvantaged position economically, it has happened as a result of your Union (Tory/LIB /LAB). For that reason we want out of your union obviously, but respect the democratic vote of Scotland to work ‘within’ that Union to obtain the best for Scotland until such time as the people realize their economic potential and move away from this Unions unfair magnetic phenomenon drawing resources inextricably from the poorer North to the wealthy Southwest.
“Therefore on the subject of FFA, we (SNP) are for it in principle, or as leased as close to it for every achievable economic advantage, within the said Union, without putting the peoples of Scotland at any perceived disadvantage, (as has been mentioned in any case within the Smith commission Proposals)”.
Very interesting Fiona – I knew the IFS was bent and political, yet all we hear from our lousy media is ‘the independent highly respected think tank .. blah blah blah’ It’s funny how they always have something negative to spin about Scotland’s finances each and every time we are due to vote.
Least – Doh !
Since IFS and OBR are both the constructs of a UK Government – is it any wonder why their reports focus on exactly what the UK Government of the day insists?
If either organisation was to go ‘off piste’ it would very soon be pulled back into line. So there you see the point of them. Facts don’t matter.
On that basis, the long article by Fiona, which was not anything like an easy read in itself, floundered by using IFS and OBR ‘gumption’ figures and in fact, the whole contrived charade over deficits UK/Scotland is no more than meaningless and should be called out as such.
Why waste any more ink and reader’s time examining deliberately false reporting. Slap it down. Surely the conventions of accountancy do not permit unsubstantiated reporting, never-mind the veracity of basic facts.
Gie’s a break Jimmy!
Evidence mounts that Creepy Jim has completely lost the plot. Not only is he in total denial about the remarkable clear and consistent message that the polls are sending him, he now declares his intention to devote the remainder of the election campaign to an insane exercise in tilting at a phantom windmill.
If Murphy is to be believed – and that is always a big question – he and his little band of retreads from Project fear aim to spend the next three weeks railing against something that isn’t going to happen – full fiscal autonomy (FFA) for Scotland.
As the sane people will be aware, FFA is supported by the SNP. Nothing surprising in that. The SNP is explicitly committed to securing more powers for Scotland up to and including independence. Nicola Sturgeon acknowledged that she would vote for FFA in the first year of the next UK Parliament should the opportunity arise. But the opportunity isn’t going to arise. It isn’t going to arise for the simple reason that the British parties, British Labour and their Tory partners, are both vehemently opposed to the meaningful devolution that FFA represents. There is absolutely no possibility that FFA will be offered.
It is not clear whether Creepy Jim is aware of this or if he actually imagines legislation to implement FFA to be a possibility. Either way, he plans on putting all of his energies into bawling about how a thing that isn’t real would be a really awful thing if it was real. It is, perhaps, the ultimate inane, vacuous scare story.
And it is made even more inane and vacuous by the fact that it really wouldn’t be a really awful thing even if it was real. So Murphy is compounding the idiocy of railing against a thing that isn’t real by lying about the thing that isn’t real. The really awful thing that isn’t real wouldn’t be a really awful thing even if it was real because the real thing really isn’t the thing that Murphy is talking about.
It’s unreal!
@Barontorc
Fiona’s piece had disclaimers about the OBR figures.
And the fact that borrowing will be restricted is a good one.
We just won’t get anything like FFA.
FFA would work with independence because we could make all sorts of savings in other areas like defense and all the other hidden payments made to the UK.
On this assumption, I think it would be beneficial to state the extra powers we do seek at this time and time scales involved, and then let the unionists argue against significant further devolution, not something that isn’t going to happen.
@Sunniva
11:28pm
I’m pretty sure I did answer your question (from a post on another website yes?) in relation to how GERS apportions the share of oil & gas. The figures I quoted to you were the illustrative geographical share which is a very very fair and favourable way to apportion how much revenue Scotland generates from oil & gas.
Here’s the relevant section from GERS:
An Illustrative Geographical Share
An alternative approach is to apportion a geographic share of North Sea revenue to Scotland. In order to estimate this share, GERS draws upon academic research carried out by Professor Alex Kemp and Linda Stephen from the University of Aberdeen. Professor Kemp is Professor of Petroleum Economics and Director of Aberdeen Centre for Research in Energy Economics and Finance (ACREEF) at the University of Aberdeen. Professor Kemp and Linda Stephen have published extensively on licensing and taxation issues on the UK Continental Shelf (UKCS). Professor Kemp is the author of “The Official History of North Sea Oil and Gas”, and is considered to be a leading expert in UK petroleum economics.
Methodology
The model used by the researchers to estimate Scotland’s illustrative geographical share of North Sea activity was first detailed in a North Sea Study Occasional paper published by the University of Aberdeen in 1999.[25] The researchers base the Scottish boundary of the UKCS on the median line principle as employed in 1999 to determine the boundary between Scotland and the rest of the UK for fishery demarcation purposes. Other alternatives are possible. Scotland’s estimated geographical share of the North Sea sector, used in this report, is highlighted in Figure 4.1 overleaf. Demarcation by the median line is highlighted by the dark shaded area. UKCS production, costs and revenue is allocated on a field by field basis to either the rest of the UK or Scotland using this boundary.
Using this methodology, all fields in the Moray Firth, Northern North Sea, West of Shetland regions of the UKCS are allocated to Scotland. Fields in the Southern North Sea and Irish Sea are assigned to the rest of the UK. The Scottish boundary, based on the median line principle, intersects the Central North Sea (CNS) region. Fields in the CNS region to the north of the median line are assigned to Scotland and fields lying to the south assigned to the rest of the UK. No fields are intersected by the median line.
Kemp and Stephen estimate Scotland’s share of tax revenue from Petroleum Revenue Tax, Ring Fenced Corporation Tax and the Supplementary Charge using a detailed financial model of the North Sea oil and gas sector. The model incorporates all changes made to the North Sea fiscal regime over the years. At an aggregate level the results produced by the model are consistent with HMRC estimates of tax revenues from oil and gas production in the UK.[26]
The model draws upon a database incorporating field and company level data for all of the UKCS that has been built up over a sustained number of years at the University of Aberdeen. Information on investment expenditures, operating costs, production, and decommissioning costs are incorporated in the database. Production data are consistent with DECC published field data.
On your other points re how to reduce expenditure I agree with you. If Holyrood had control over these areas there’s absolutely no doubt it could effect change on how much it would have to pay out in benefits, and this is not a benefit cut per say. It is simply reducing benefit spend by making employers take on the responsibility of paying their employees more.
Of course there’ll be people who say “if you force employers to increase wages they’ll pay people off”, I don’t really believe this as the remaining employees simply wouldn’t be able to cover all the work.
@Dave McEwan Hill, this is what I am asking of you, to come up with real suggestions on how Scotland’s economy could be altered if Holyrood had control. Simple eh?
@Hoss Mackintosh
Of course it is about politics, of course it is…because it’s politicians arguing for it. Back in the real world there’s economics, and you cannot run a country if you don’t have an effective plan for your economy.
@CameronB Brodie
All my magic ball has it the starting point, where Scotland would be at the start of the journey to managing its own affairs. Unfortunately the starting point is quite stark in economic terms. Do you have any suggestions as to how the overall Scottish economy would be “better” under FFA?
@Vince
I agree that FFA is basically a red herring…until the point it appears in the SNP’s manifesto that is. If the SNP include a desire for FFA in their manifesto then it has to be questioned, otherwise what is the point of it being there (regardless of the fact that the other parties have said they’ll vote for it or not).
@Fiona
First thank you for taking the time to present some real information on the economy (although I think it’s a bit naughty comparing UK 2012-2013 figures to Scotland 2013-2014 figures, Scotland’s 2012-2013 deficit was £14 billion as opposed to £12 billion in 2013-2014…but it’s not going to alter the shape of your argument that much). As you’ve said many times before, GERS attributes costs to Scotland that are opaque and would “probably” be reduced under any FFA negotiations. I’m guessing however that even these “spent in the UK for the benefit of Scotland” costs won’t amount to anything like the numbers required to bring down the deficit difference (but of course I don’t know that).
@Peter A Bell
If the SNP include FFA in their manifesto (and of course it’s not been published yet so we don’t know if they will) do you think it is right to question it even if the other parties have stated they’d not vote for it?
Do you have anything to say on how FFA would work starting with the current economic conditions Holyrood would find itself in?
A wider question – if the SNP don’t include a desire for FFA in their manifesto what does it say about their political ambitions for Scotland? Are they admitting that they couldn’t manage Scotland’s economy on their own?
I don’t think much more in they way of powers is likely to come Scotland’s way.
However, if anything is forthcoming, careful assessment is needed!
There are all sorts of scenarios and configurations which might prove ‘bear traps’ with the hidden agenda of allowing the SG to make a mess of fiscal affairs!
One obvious situation would be … the powers for Holyrood to raise what it spends but without other powers to allow reorganisation of services and make savings.
If any offers are made by Unionists, there will be an inbuilt bias towards maintaining the Union. One simply way to achieve that is to scheme to tarnish the SG whereby powers allow damage, but do not allow balance to prevent that damage.
Any mix of powers will always have advantage for the Union, and potential to paint the SG in a bad light. Beware!
I trust the SNP not to fall into traps!
Colin – I am pretty sure FFA will be in the manifesto. Hence Nicola directly asking if Murphy would support it. If she asks Milliband tonight to support it. Then you know it will be in the manifesto!
@calgacus,
Yes mate it was Alastair Darling who said they were a Tory front.
The IFS was indeed brainchild of the Tories, and probably stuffed with Tory lackies, but Alistair Darling and the Labour Party, were only to happy to use information from the IFS to back up their smears and fears against Scots whenever it has suited them.
@Rev Stu:’Full Fiscal Autonomy isn’t going to happen’
I disagree: fiscally autonomous countries not only trade with one another they set up non-commercial financial transfers. For example, the UK notionally has a £3billion plus a year transfer from Scotland for debt interest, even though legally there is no debt contract between the two parties, it’s a moral liability.
So too is the ‘union dividend’ of £7billion a year promised by Better Together (higher now, with lower oil prices) not to mention the moral liability rUK has for the deception over the oil which led to Scotland pumping 25% of its GDP a year down to Thatcher.
@Rev Stu: ‘What the SNP needs is a simple, punchy one-line answer that kills the argument, and it’s easy: “We would not vote for any FFA settlement that disadvantaged Scotland”.
Yes, well the SNP promise to hold Westminster’s feet to the fire on their promises. So rolling out FFA control over taxes and welfare and pensions over the next parliament plus adding to the tax revenue the £10 billion or whatever ‘union divided’ is another line to take. Can’t think of a punchy way of putting it. But Nicola Sturgeon has already been saying things which suggest they are moving this way: alluding to the debt interest, the need for a ‘fiscal framework’ and so on.
In other words, you can have FFA plus a transfer from rUK: the Daily Mail will spit blood and rant about subsidy junkies but so what, they will do that regardless.
I agree the current line is weak: ‘we’ll magically double economic growth in the next five years’ is a useless line which people see right through. My line would be ‘It’s either FFA or FFS’ (the latter being the Smith Commission proposals which are a scam to reduce per capita public expenditure relative to the rest of the UK.
(The SNP should also emphasise that their anti-austerity policy on modest increases in public spending is not only better for the less well-off but also for nearly everybody and is actually mainstream economics, cf. Prof. Simon Wren-Lewis of Oxford University- the Tories, Labour and LibDems are all dancing to the tune of Economic’s equivalents of creationists or climate-change deniers.)
First thank you for taking the time to present some real information on the economy (although I think it’s a bit naughty comparing UK 2012-2013 figures to Scotland 2013-2014 figures, Scotland’s 2012-2013 deficit was £14 billion as opposed to £12 billion in 2013-2014…but it’s not going to alter the shape of your argument that much). As you’ve said many times before, GERS attributes costs to Scotland that are opaque and would “probably” be reduced under any FFA negotiations. I’m guessing however that even these “spent in the UK for the benefit of Scotland” costs won’t amount to anything like the numbers required to bring down the deficit difference (but of course I don’t know that).
I didn’t use a different year, though I did refer to 2012-13. But the £18 billion from QE was in the year 2013-14, which is the same year as the GERS figures we are all using
It is not possible to break down unidentified expenditure, because the information is not available. All we know is that it is 14% of total spend and that a large part of it is defence and administration costs.
But that is not the thrust of my argument, though it is important. In that post I am talking about something different altogether.If it is true that the borrowing in the UK is artificially reduced by excluding such things as sale of royal mail and income from QE, then on my calculation the difference between UK levels of deficit and Scotland’s level of deficit alters very significantly: in the year under discussion it disappears.
What that means is that Scotland is in no worse position than the UK, yet we are told that this is a disaster for Scotland and not for the UK. That is the heart of my case and I will be very interested in further discussion showing why it is wrong. There is no doubt that the UK deficit adopted by the OBR and used by the IFS excludes those receipts. It is affirmed many times in various OBR publications (one of which I have linked) and the reports in the press also mention it sometimes.
Both countries have a deficit. The deficit is said to be a bad thing, though in fact in our current circumstances it is a good thing and it would be better if it were bigger. Much bigger! The alternative is to expand private debt, and that means you and I (and/or businesses) go further into the red: and that is the plan, as other projections from the OBR amply demonstrate. See also this report from the Guardian http://www.theguardian.com/money/2015/apr/15/imf-economic-recovery-risk-loans-credit-cards
I hold no brief for the IMF, which I consider to be an ideologically driven apologist for plutocrats: but they are listened to by government, when it suits them: so it is not illegitimate to draw attention to their view in this context.
You may think that is a good thing, but since households and businesses are income constrained it really isn’t. Government is not so constrained and that is why all this talk of debt and deficit as if it were the same thing is nonsense. The problem in the UK (as with other developed economies in the so called boom times) is private debt. The focus on public debt is at best disingenuous.
However, though that is true there is no conceivable credible government brave enough to say that, even if they know it (and it is clear that they do or QE could not have happened). So we are where we are.
Colin Rippey
All my magic ball has it the starting point, where Scotland would be at the start of the journey to managing its own affairs. Unfortunately the starting point is quite stark in economic terms. Do you have any suggestions as to how the overall Scottish economy would be “better” under FFA?
Thanks for replying to my rather cheeky post, and without loosing your cool. Well done.
Scotland has been managing itself rather effectively, on devolved matters, this last decade under the SNP, holding things together as best we can on our pocket money, despite London’s apparent austerity death wish. Yes, Scotland does face a stark economic situation, wholly as a result of London’s ineptitude on macro-economic matters and corruption throughout Westminster and Whitehall. Or are you happy with London’s economic mismanagement?
Sorry, I’m unable to suggest how things would be ‘better’ under FFA, as I really hadn’t given it any consideration.