The empty helicopter
We’re still trying to make sense of some confusing arithmetic in Gordon Brown’s latest doomspeech about pensions, which was delivered this evening at Glasgow University and which we examined in some detail here.
One part in particular had us scratching our heads in bafflement, so we’ve pulled it out for some closer scrutiny by itself. Tell us if we get anything wrong.
“Scotland benefits far more from UK-wide pension credits to top up the basic pension, with £700 million a year paid to 248,000 Scots in credits worth £25 per week to the typical recipient.
And Scottish pensioners receive far more disability benefits. One in four Scots old people – 259,000 – receive disability support, costing £1 billion a year. It is worth an average of £20 a week to recipients.“
An alert reader spotted that those sums seemed rather wildly off. 248,000 people getting £25 a week is £322m, not £700m, and 259,000 people getting £20 a week is £269m, not £1 billion.
So what could be the explanation? The obvious answer would seem to be that the figures have factored in the cost of bureaucracy, but the first sentence appears to refute that, stating explicitly that the £700m figure is paid to the recipients.
Unfortunately that only leaves “Gordon Brown, former UK Chancellor of the Exchequer, is a blundering idiot completely unable to grasp basic arithmetic” as an explanation, and while it’s tempting and offers a lot of comedy potential, it surely can’t be the case.
So we can only assume instead that he’s terrible at English, and the first sentence of the quote is a simple grammatical error which implies something it didn’t mean to.
So let’s operate from the premise that £1bn is the total cost of disability benefits in Scotland, including all administrative costs as well as the actual benefits paid to recipients. That means that for every £1 we pay to a disabled pensioner, we fork out £3 in costs. Which seems like a lot.
Is there some way we could streamline that process?
Well, Brown tells us that “one in four” Scottish pensioners is 259,000 people, which means that there are fractionally over a million in Scotland altogether. A billion pounds divided between every pensioner in Scotland is therefore as near as makes no odds to £1000 each – coincidentally, about £20 a week.
“Helicopter money” is a financial theory proposed by economist Milton Friedman, which says that a good way to stimulate a struggling economy, rather than giving imaginary money to bankers who just hoard it (basically what “quantitative easing” is), is to hand it directly to the people. They then go out and spend it on stuff, creating demand and jobs.
We’re not going to go into the detailed pros and cons of the principle here. But if Brown’s figures are in ANY way correct, which is clearly a pretty big “if”, then what we’ve just learned is that Scotland could increase the state pension by £20 a week, across the board, without spending a single extra penny.
There’d be no admin costs, because it wouldn’t have to be means-tested. Everyone who currently gets the pension would just get £20 more a week, pumping hundreds of millions of pounds into the economy every year that at the moment just gets swallowed up uselessly in red tape.
Brown warned tonight that an independent Scotland couldn’t afford its state pension. But what he’s actually just told us is that it could afford to boost it by a whacking 18% overnight, for everyone, for free.
Either that or the former Chancellor can’t multiply two numbers together. Either way, we’re not sure he’s made much of a case as someone who should be listened to.
Did he do any inteviews? or did he just do a runner
Gordon Brown was “unavailable” for interview.
Apparently he was researching the cost of helicopter hire, insurance, and aviation fuel in order to refute some theory posted on a separatist supporting website.
He is just recalibrating the pint measure.
Meant to add this.
link to archive.today
Probably concentrating more on his next US lecture tour.
Is it my imagination or wasn’t the whole “Helicopter Theory” thing tried for real somewhere?
Anyway, this is what I like about Wings/the internet in general. It’s like a massive ideas generating machine that traditional politics couldn’t manage to do – ever.
London Evening Standard
link to standard.co.uk
Gordon Brown ‘declined’ to be interviewed for Scotland Tonight..
2 on 1 tv again here in BTs favour.
El Gordo isn’t even trying to convince us these days. His contempt for ordinary people has always been deeply ingrained, and it just seems to increase when he has to justify himself to us Scots who, let’s be honest, haven’t had the necessary enterprise to get out and make it in the real world, viz. London. Sadly, El Gordo and his fellow Labour titans aren’t the only ones to feel contempt for us – look at Sunny Alexander – another one who is head and shoulders above us unenterprising types who chose to stay in our own country and can’t rival his dazzling success. Oh, how I feel humbled by them.
This seems to be an I agree with Gordon interview.Who’s the Tory guy?
Brian Taylor was definitely at the GB speech – heard him on RS as the speech was ongoing.
So, what’s the score? No interviews, no questions? Didn’t anyone even try and ask him something? Did Ponsonby pursue him out the door?
It’s really getting to the point where you feel that if you want anything done you have to just do it yourself. And then, before you know it, you’re doing it for real.
Let’s become proper trainee journalists working for our own blogs, and start demanding access to these staged events. If the usual coupons won’t ask these unaccountable belters some questions, we’ll have to do it. No point hoping that the MSM are going to change their spots – they won’t.
Broon is a great asset WTF! try this ya grumpy two faced bastirt..
link to youtube.com
Sorry o/t – bt on Scotland Tonight both winging it. Labour big guns holding cabinet in Scotland this week – nearly wept with joy and off to look out my best suit and tie – if only they had come up last week they could have washed the feet of us sinners
The sight of GB delivering this load of questionable guff, on Channel 4 News, was truly pitiable. Not only are the arguments duff and the ‘figures’ moonshine but the man himself is a pitiable wreck of his former self. You’d be tempted to buy his brushes on the doorstep out of compassion – not because you thought they’d do anything that he promised. Using Brown like this is all of a piece with the whole BT/Project Fear enterprise – exploitative and inhuman. Let the poor man sink into the obscurity he seems, wisely at last, to have sought and leave the poor sod alone. As a footnote – it was breath-taking to see, on the same news, a Labour spokesman excoriating UKIP for indulging in ‘fear tactics’ for the euro-elections. Do they ever hear, or think about, what they are saying?
@ cynicalHighlander
I wish I could understand what I’m looking at there. I’ve never really grasped betting. Are we winning?
I don’t know whether it is relevant in this case, but, it is not unknown, for the purposes of political spin, to aggregate budget figures over a period of years to present a bigger And more impressive number. So the budget figure, which is presented, might be reached by putting together the total from five years of finance, but not giving the period of time, and with people then led to believe they are being presented with an annual figure. As above, I don’t know if relevant to this situation, but it may well be there are something of smoke and mirrors at work here. Mr Brown would be well used to such PR trickery – it would be interesting to find out what tricks are involved with this.
I apologise if my constantly posting this is annoying, but the stance of RGU is an intolerable insult to anyone involved in any form of education.
link to tinyurl.com
Now I know how the financial crash happened. Darling and Brown checked each other’s figures.
Funny how they never make mistakes when flipping houses or running a “charity” with a 1 to 3 payout ratio.
Thanks Reverend, another great question and no UKOK answer report. The default state for these guys is that the average voter in Scotland and England is as dumb as a stump. If you had the BBC in Scotland and every single newspaper owner behind you, you couldn’t lose, in the olden days. From the look of exhausted ageing backbencher Brown on stage tonight, even he knows he’s a relic.
I’ll get another couple of signatures tomorrow Ian, when I return to work after my wee holiday. RGU need to know what the feeling is.
@Alfresco Dent –
Best price I can see on that list (for a Yes win) is 5/2. That’s more generous than most – average seems to be just above the 2/1.
A fortnight ago, the Counting House raffle dosh was placed at 5/1.
So, the bookies reckon that we are, right now, twice as likely to win the referendum as they did just two weeks ago. Another fortnight prior to that I got 7/1, and some folk here, placing bets last year, got 10 or even 11/1.
The trend couldn’t be clearer, and there’s no sign of it stopping – if anything, it’s accelerating. Looks like the penny’s finally dropped with the bigger bookies’ central offices, and they’re starting to pay serious attention. Whatever effect those huge anonymous ‘No’ bets (in Glasgow, last year) may have had in shoring up the BT-win odds will now have evaporated.
Game on.
Iain Grey on Newsnight Scotland stating that the Scottish population are aging faster than the rest of the UK population. Is there something in the drinking water in Scotland that’s making that happen? We have a right to know
The Helicopter Money was applied in Australia. Each tax payer got £900 (or perhaps Aus$ Anyway daughter and her hubbie got the cash and put it towards another car. Nice one!
moujick:
Helicopter money was tried in Oz a few years back.
It was a $1000 (or $2000 not entirely sure) tax rebate.
Everybody called it the ‘Flat Screen Tv Grant’.
I think it did limited benefit, but personally I think it’s a west better idea than letting it sit in banks books effectively inactive. That said there would have been many families that it meant an awful lot.
When the interviewer on Newsnight Scotland stated that Brown is ‘joining the debate’ . Surely the meaning of ‘debate’ is discussing and asking questions and getting answers not turning up and talking down to the riff raff and walking away again
@ Edward 11.10
It must be true. Hearing Broon aged me 10 years
I take your point but I don’t think Milton Friedman is the guy to be looking at for models of what to do with an independent Scottish economy. Friedman’s voodoo bullshit economic theories laid the foundations for the disgusting state the global economy has been in for the last 30 years. The fucker.
@Edward –
You’re right enough.
We had this same conversation a few months back, and found documentary evidence. Here, for example, is Johann Lamont’s passport photo from 2005:
tinyurl.com/lgqeunw
Aye, okay, that didn’t work, but please also bear in mind that the reason Jackson Carlaw can’t remember Denis Healey is quite simple – JC is only 27.
James G Brown looks like a bloated corpse. He seems to be suffering the same bodily collapse as his partner in evil blair. The 300 year old former PM.
Would it be possible for brown to be put on trial for crimes against humanity post independence, and is that one of the reasons for his terror of a Yes vote?
€Cyncal Highlander 10:29 pm
“Gordon Brown has insisted it makes “no sense whatsoever” for Scotland to break its political links with England.”
Translation:
“Gordon Brown has insisted it makes “no sense whatsoever” for Scotland to break its political links with the Labour Party.”
Amazing – the debate has been going on for the best part of two years and Gordon Brown is only getting around to joining it with 21 weeks to go. Where has he been the rest of the time?
I see the copy of the Telegraph held up in Newsnight Scotland is different from the English version shown on Sky News web page
Once again telling the English one thing and tell Scots something else
Oops!
€bookie from Hell 10:33 pm
Gordon ‘I bankrupted Britain’ Brown, is the last person anyone should be taking financial advice from.
Does he not realise that people remember how incompetent he was as a Prime Minister, and that his self delusion of grandeur lead him to believe that he “saved the world”.
With the greatest of respect, the man is a clown.
I never new it was called helicopter money but that’s how I thought the banking crisis should have been dealt with. All the bail out money shared equally between households or adults. Regardless of how it is used it either ends up in a bank or in the treasury. Is that too simplistic?
@Ian Brotherhood
I wrote to RGU today seeking clarification as to whether they, by remaining a member of CBI Scotland, were endorsing the employee factsheets supplied by the CBI and, if so, how this squared with their insistence on neutrality. I’ll let you know if I get a reply.
Currently at 478. 🙁
If it’s not over 500 by midnight then we really need some kind of a collective slap.
link to tinyurl.com
Iain Gray explains it all so well on newsnight Scotland. The pension pot is better if the burden is shared between £60 million rather than £5 million (pounds, not people, you see).
Also Scotland is up shit Creek if it says yes because we pay 9.1% of tax revenue and get 9.3% of spending… and that 0.2% equals £12 billion. Now mibbe my maths is really rusty but if our tax revenues last year were £546billion then our worries are surely over. Make mines one of those pina coladas.
Am I wrong? He was reading the figures out… or at least the Iain Gray avatar appeared to read them out . Someone is surely operating him from a safe distance.
Did Mr Brown mention how many new jobs would be created in Scotland to administer the pension plans?
Every time RUK talks about duplication consider that it will be an opportunity to do it right ourselves with less government waste
I have thankfully missed listening to almost everything emanating from BBC etc about the ex politician other than the Grey man pushing the benefits of the Broon man. 😛
On the up side I’m off to listen to a REAL classy politician tomorrow night, Alex Salmond is giving a speech in Carlisle tomorrow night and I’ll be there to give him my support, not that he’ll need any from me. 🙂
So both Johann and Gordon crap with arithmetic. They should form a double act. Two Counts.
We’ve got 13 minutes to get another 16 names…
link to tinyurl.com
Surely if you want to kick start an economy, you spread the dosh around as many people as possible – they then spend it and you get a knock on effect. If you give money to the already well off they move it out of the economy – simples.
Ian
I emailed the RGU link to a load of people and have asked them to email it on to others.
I think when we get this wee holiday out of the way, things will take off.
Also watch the odds start to drop. I wonder who will be first to go below 2/1.
The betrayers of hope line up to register for a knighthood.
@Croompenstein
Later that day this happened.
link to youtube.com
Brown leaves himself open to ridicule, and you do it so well!
One of my favourite pages:
link to tpadata.com
Only beaten by punch a celeb. Or even Blunkett’s dog.
Ho Ho Ho
Paula
I dropped into the Off-Topic room. First time. Left a queen record,
“I want to break free” from rUK.
Leave Scotland in ‘a semi-colonial position’ – as opposed to his fully colonial position where he gets to wear the ermine he is longing for? Honestly the lack of irony here says a great deal about this man’s intelligence.
Signed petition.
Only 4 needed.
498
We nearly did it.
Fwatoosh! fwatoosh! fwatoosh!
Ayabassye!
Fwatoosh!
🙂
Scotlands tax revenue 546bn ?
In your dreams. Total HMRC tax revenue
2013, was 456bn.
Scotland just a fraction of that.
Nice idea, but completely inaccurate.
“Scotlands tax revenue 546bn ?
In your dreams. Total HMRC tax revenue
2013, was 456bn.”
I think you may have missed the point of the (sarcastic) comment…
Suspect choice of photo in The Times tonight.
link to thetimes.co.uk
Anybody know whom this “expert” is?
Ian Brotherhood says:
“We’ve got 13 minutes to get another 16 names”
Made it – just. 😀
Tweeted anyway to try get a few more.
( caz-m – a wee ditty on O/T shortly)
RogueCoder
Johann Lamont? The Ghost of Mrs Thatcher?
Ian Brotherhood, et al. Last night in Kirkhill with Danny and sidekick, and the Bitter Together roadshow
link to youtube.com
IB – just 2 more signatures needed for the 500. :-0
Is it hopelessly naive to ask if ANYONE in the MSM picked up the shoddy arithmetic that alert Wingers picked up within hours of seeing the press release?
On another note, did anyone else notice Jackie Bird promoting Nicola Sturgeon to “leader of the Yes campaign”? Poor Blair, hearing about that on the telly…
@X_sticks –
On stroke of midnight I clocked 498, but hey, this laptop is ancient and dodgy, so I’m happy to go with your take on it!
In any event, the writing’s on the wall for RGU – they must be losing a lot of friends in the academic community with this ridiculous posturing.
Alex Salmond heading for Carlisle Wednesday to make a friendship speech. On St Georges Day.
link to telegraph.co.uk
Ok Ian Brotherhood, I’m your 500th
Yeah now got 502. 🙂
Wash the acrid taste of Brown from your mouth with an insight into our very own independence supporter movie star: grousebeater.wordpress.
10 minutes late tho
a2 – congrats – now for the next 500.
I’m sure I was the 500th – winky smiley thingy.
Crash Gordon & Alistair Darling are now on the same team again, but remember the last time they were in charge.
link to youtube.com
possably 501
One should never forget that Gordon mucked up his sums over the 10p rate of tax despite Blair asking him if he was sure that was right.
paula you must have pipped me it said 499 as I pressed the buton
Apparently Gordon Brown “strikes fear among nationalists”
Apparently Gordon Brown “strikes fear among nationalists”
No one likes having a mobile phone thrown at them whatever their political opinions 😉
(@ a2 – those butons can be very tricky)
A little humour before bedtime.
Imagine the annoying git being Gordy Broon or BT and the pitbull being Scotland.
link to metro.co.uk
Karma and all that.
Looks increasingly like the Tories have “tactically withdrawn from the debate meantime for obvious reasons and they have decided to allow the “over the hill has beens” Broon, Murphy, Alexander ,reid etc. “the Westminster wanderers” lead the attack against “Holyrood Thistle”in a desperate attempt to “shore up” their home support who have been steadily drifting towards the “yes goal”.Problem for WW is that they have no left sided players and the HT manager is aware of this weakness and can hopefully with some nimble footwork in this area ,”win the day”and gain HT promotion to the European “Champions league of parliaments”.The “winning goal” and “final whistle” would undoubtedly be greeted with a resounding cry of “YES SCOTLAND” .
Apparently Gordon Brown “strikes fear among nationalists”
Godzilla!
Jeannie says:
Jeannie, amazingly his time was used up rehearsing !
@Alan Mackintosh (12.06) –
re your link above, I watched all of the Q&A after skipping Alexander’s speech.
Great stuff.
Being Chef Sec to the Treasury or any kind of figurehead for BT will now be the last thing on his mind – if that documentary evidence is anything to go by then he’s out on his arse at the next GE. And he knows it.
your too right Gordon strikes fear into me have you ever been in the bakers after him? 😉 hang him high
Alan Mackintosh says:
Alan, we have to wonder just how Danny would fare against a audience that is anywhere near hostile?
On this showing he would go to pieces, another “Help me Rhona” but no Rhona would be there to help!
This is funny and so very true:
link to munguinsrepublic.blogspot.co.uk
Another cracker Rev.
Darling and Brown better together again.
There’s a joke in there somewhere… no wait. 😀
The dodgy maths and the hit-and-run speech doesn’t really matter..
It’s just a set piece to allow the doom and gloom newpaper headlines from the compliant media. To scare the shoppers with. Job done.
Only a few geeks will actually read a pensions article, and question the selective figures and the dishonest conclusions..
douglas alexander getting ripped to pieces in comments
link to scotsman.com
@ Tam Jardine
“Am I wrong?”
Yep. The 0.2% referred to don’t relate to the figures in that way…. They are 2 mutually exclusive figures. Will need to check if he is right but in the meantime, just ignore me. Shit. It’s 4am.
All of these benefits that he waffles on about; aren’t they just ‘something for nothing’ and going to be cut after a No vote?
Grouse Beater
Apparently Gordon Brown “strikes fear among nationalists”
I’d imagine that this would be the reason…
link to dailymail.co.uk
However, experts warn that eating nine a day is ‘excessive’ and could lead to indigestion as well as frequent trips to the toilet.
Sian Porter, from the British Dietetic Association, urged Mr Brown to curb his intake and to replace them with other fruits for a more balanced diet.
She said: ‘There is a lot of fibre in bananas. A lot of volume in means a lot of volume out’.
A banana contains 6 grams of fructose.
link to en.m.wikipedia.org
Potential Health Effects
Here’s a must read…
Andrew Neil spouting off in style in Australia.
link to abc.net.au
Hat tip to Neale Hanvey on Twitter!
And for posterity, lest it disappears…
link to archive.today
Remember, all they have to do is scare 50% + 1 to win. That is the only the arithmetic they care about.
link to youtube.com
I think Brown and Darling have become a tag team. They may hate each other, but they are brothers in arms when it comes to being the boogiemen.
January – ‘Happy New Year, my fellow Scots. By the way …it’s going to get more unpleasant’. Blinks coded messages at us, ‘Vote No’. Crawls back into hidey-hole.
February – Gordon returns. Grunted some words about Pensions, threw his arms around a lot, pulled numbers out of thin air, puts the fear into pensioners. Disappears better than George Osborne after the event.
March / April – The straight-jackets off; Darling’s back. Does a couple of interviews for the media boys. Tells people that ‘Scottish nationalists are ‘monstering’ UK supporters’. Waggles his eyebrows in an attempt to dazzle us. Currently, whereabouts unknown, but being sedated with more drugs than resides at your local Boots chemist.
April – Gordon appears on the eve of St. George’s Day. Herds in some more Pensioners. Talks about Pensions. Orders Pensioners to clap. Vanishes like Mephistopheles.
So …what do we expect next. Well, at the start of May, we should see Darling with pupils the size of pinholes shrieking ‘Doom! Doom!’ while Gordon will be booked in for the end of that month to badger and frighten some more Pensioners. If we’re lucky, Lord Robertson might be back with more scary stories of the collapse of Western Civilisation, dinosaurs, wee grey men and that the sun is about to switch itself off…
Happy St George’s Day 🙂
Is Glasgow University a formal supporter of the No campaign? Did the No lot pay for the room/ theatre in which Mr Brown spoke? I note he was led in by Sir Kenneth Calman – was that in a personal capacity or was he representing the university ? Did not the University quit the CBI because they wished to appear neutral? A strange neutrality!
@ luke skye walker
Stating the obvious often hits the nail on the head.
GB & the No crew know that they can spout a pile of pi*h in terms of stats etc, and the MsM will lap it up without challenge.
Hence the “no awkward questions” rule, in case some naive journo breaks ranks in spite of knowing its career suicide.
So the pile of pi+h is validated by being re-spouted in the MsM and that’s what the average voter takes in unless he/she takes a look at Wings (or other such sources of normal journalistic standards).
50% plus 1 starts to look quite easy.
Sorry, meant to add…
Closer we get to September and the closer we get in the polls, the sooner the MsM types will realise their current line might be the career suicide one, and start to wonder if the likes of the BBC and/or Boothman will survive a Yes vote.
This morning, I showed the two statements re pensioner credits and pensioner disability benefits to my 75 year old wife, my 16 year old grandson and my 13 year old grandson and asked them simply to look at the maths. None of them took more than three minutes to spot the inconsistency in the figures.
What was more interesting was their answer to my question: ” How could this be and who would make such an ‘error’?”
My wife (an ex teacher) said quite simply: “someone who couldn’t count”
My 16 year old grandson sitting his highest in a few weeks offered: “a crook?”
My 13 year old grandson was more nuanced and commented: “must be an MP”
None of them was given the background to the statements on pensioner credits and disability benefits and all were shocked to learn that these statements had been made yesterday by a former UK Chancellor of the Exchequer.
For those on this site who are not into, or out of their depth when economics is raised, like me, here is a Vid that offers a simple and understandable explanation of ‘Helicopter Money’ (AKA. The UK Ponzi scheme) and a possible better alternative.
“Is it my imagination or wasn’t the whole “Helicopter Theory” thing tried for real somewhere?”
Something similar pulled Germany out of its depression, Japan out of its depression, and allowed Lincoln to afford to win his civil war.
Conspiricy theorists would note that in two of those occasions, the countries were invaded shortly after showing that it worked really well.
I’m sure the SSP/Greens have a lot of analysis of the effects in their “Citizen’s Wage” preposals.
O/T BBC harping on about the fantastic new investment unveiled by gov’t around green energy, also quite content to suggest that minimum alcohol pricing was one of the reasons for big drop in violence. When is a scottish government policy not a bad policy….?
re. Kirkhill meet.
DA seems to have a rather tenuous grasp of the numbers for such an ‘important treasury official’. It would be great to have him head to head with someone like Ivan or Gordon who could throw the numbers straight back at him.
Happy St. George’s day, the tradtional day to go and pick dandelions for dandelion wine.
Denmark had a helicopter money decision some years back and, as their system, had a referendum on what to do with the budget surplus.
The debate and vote went for giving to the disadvantaged, children and handicapped.
@AllyBally
It depends, given as a lump sum it tends to be spent on imported consumer durables: cars, TVs, computers. So a large part goes overseas to buy them in the first place, a proportion is sales tax/import duty, a proportion is lost in currency transaction costs and a slither is retail profit. So not a lot actually stays in the local economy, lots is lost offshore.
Giving the same amount spread over the year tends to avoid this phenomenon. Some will save it or put it on hire purchase for consumer durables but many will just spend it on food/heat/energy.
Remember this is the man who robbed our pension funds of £100 BILLION in 1997.
link to telegraph.co.uk
The next BBC TV “debate” is open for audience applications.
link to bbc.co.uk
In Portree, July 8th, so if you’re on holiday up there at the time, what a nice way to spend the evening 🙂
I take your point but I don’t think Milton Friedman is the guy to be looking at for models of what to do with an independent Scottish economy. Friedman’s voodoo bullshit economic theories laid the foundations for the disgusting state the global economy has been in for the last 30 years. The fucker.
Agreed. Anyone who has ever read Naomi Klein’s excellent book, ‘The Shock Doctrine’ will now that ‘fucker’ describes Milton Friedman perfectly.
Apart from anything else, being Thatcher’s economics guru, or the leading light of the school to which Alan Walters subscribed, is enough to qualify him as a complete fucker.
*know.
D’oh. Bring back edit please.
I pointed out the mistakes on the BT webpage but don’t expect the posts to last long at all.
Muscleguy,
Lump sums to people on low incomes works well in. Replacing apliances can only be done expensively on credit and creating cuts to other parts of the fragile budget.
Obviously, benefit levels need to be sufficient to live on first but after that lump sum payments are hugely beneficial not only for the poorest but anyone whose monthly income is pretty well spent in advance.
In the Netherlands system there are two regular lump sum payments.
Kinderbijslag (child benefit) is paid quarterly, so it is not part of the regular monthly spend.
Holiday money, around 10%, is withheld from payment by both employers AND social security and paid as a lumpsum with the June(?) wages/benefit payment.
EU Citizens for Independent Scotland have a great St George,s day poster to share with our English friends today. We should all share.
Sorry it’s O/t. Can’t think or say anymore about Gordon Brown. He makes me feel stressed!
@Brotyboy
I think Milton Friedman recanted later. So why are the feckers still preaching vodoo.
link to theguardian.com
BtP
Nice article Rev, doing the job that a decent media would do if we had one.
Think it’s time for a bit of revenge though. Would love to see the article long overdue on London subsidy junkies.
London, with an unemployment rate still over 1% higher than us and a larger population, has nearly 30% more unemployed than the whole of Scotland.
However, housing benefit paid in the London boroughs is consistently between two and up to five times higher than the equivalent benefits in Glasgow or any other Scottish city.
Londoners are claiming £100’s of millions more in housing benefit than the whole of Scotland.
Of course, thats far too negative a story for the Yes campaign to do, but it’s at least relevant to point out that London, as a region, needs to be catered for because of it’s uniqueness as the UK capital. Property prices are very high in the city.
In the same way Scotland needs to be catered for as a unique area because of our vast rural communities, our public water ownership etc. We are as unique as any other UK region, but for Scotland, it’s a device used to single us out and be used against us.
Think it’s time we turned the tables and gave a little something back.
Happy St Georges day to all our English readers.
We should never forget that the majority of English people are the salt of the earth. It is very sad that a few rotten apples in London and the Home Counties have brought the UK to position we are now in where many in Scotland feel that the political union is detrimental to our country.
It could have been so different if they had not been so greedy, and given Scotland and the Scots the recognition and respect that is deserved.
Parking their nuclear arsnal in our country against our wishes and squandering the oil wealth that Scotland should have benefited from was not only wrong but immoral.
I shall be voting Yes, but not against England per se, but for Scotland.
I asked this question yesterday on Wee Ginger Dug. Whatever happened to “United with Labour”, the “campaign” that was launched last year with Brown as it’s lead? If I remember correctly, their idea was that Brown supposedly didn’t want to be associated with the likes of Darling, and his co-alition partners. But I see from yesterday’s speech, he is now standing on a Better Together platform. What a hypocrite.
@ Alex Beveridge, yes I wondered what happened to his own campaign, my considered opinion was that he would not get involved with the BT crowd in case they lost, given their parlous state perhaps they played on his ego, that he was the one to save the Union. Now that wouldn’t surprise me.
O/T
Hard copy of Scotland’s Future we have has pages missing. Specifically pages 431 to 462. They are all there in the PDF version.
Looking further, we seem to have pages 463 to 494 replicated.
Are we just lucky to have a “collector’s edition” or is this a common problem?
Genuine question re Crash Gordon Brown –
How many times can you ‘enter a campaign’ for the first time ? So his other utterances were not in support of the NO campaign ?
What were the other failed, ‘initiatives’ that Brown fronted ; United with Labour and his foray into securing the ‘longevity’ of Holyrood in stone ? Jusy what is the story with this guy.
Why does Brown keep getting special treatment from the press ??
Why does he have to get his minions to represent him. He wont answer questions from reporters on TV himslef.
He wont discuss face to face, so why the adulation and assertion of being a so called big hitter.
Its pathetic how this goes on without challenge.
The pattern is clear, if the controllers want an easy time for Better Together, send for John MacKay. (Useless)
BBC Jackie Bird show about Women – hopeless rubbish & manipulation.
Well last night a new BBC strategy emerged, with a full hour of Jackie Bird “Investigating ” why women were reluctant to vote YES. Followed by Newsnight showing a “Flavour” of the program.
They obviously think women are an easier target for their creepy propaganda. No doubt we will hear more every couple of days, by persuading women watching that to vote YES is against women’s instincts. Don’t like change etc etc!
@ Jim T 10.15
Nope, nothing wrong with my copy, guess your’re just lucky!
I see that BlunderBoris is set to announce his return to Westminster at the next Westminster GE in 2016.
He is still waiting on some mate giving up his seat in return for Ermine or something.
link to tinyurl.com
Another reason to vote Yes.
Can you imagine a No vote and Boris in charge?
Dave had better watch his back
The No campaign has the comedy double act of Brown and Darling,also known as Belter Together, and they send these clowns north to make us feart.
More of the same please, even their media control realises they are dumb and dumber.
@ Bugger (the Panda)
Thanks for the link to the William Keegan article. I was unaware of any recantation, but as you say, it begs the question, why are we still getting Reaganomics/Thatcherism lite shoved at us by the Westminster based parties?
@Mosstrooper
Woohoo – e-bay here I come 😛
Just ordered another one anyway. Need that library copy 🙂
The mistake you are making is the fundamental one of assuming that *any* of Brown’s figures bear a resemblance to reality. He is a random number generating machine.
O/T One for the Techi dept.
Holyrood TV – Cannot load M3U8:
no levels to play.
I have complained in the past about the service ie De-coder fell over ect ect.
Bbc Democrecy live is working,I dont want to watch via Bbc
they can interupt the sound vision as they have done in the past.
I will be complaining again I just need a few pointers,
on their bullshit reasons, as I have had in the past.
OMG! First we get ben-doon Broon fear bombing the aged, now we get dug-up dug Townie Bliar getting 45 minutes on TV to remind us of the need to keep lovebombing the muslims!
Why these one-man-bandits continue to get air-play on anything other than prison TV is beyond comprehension.
Friday, the saddo cabinet will be here to drown out the news as we mourn the passing of oor Margo, how low can these people sink?
What an utter shower of sh*te.
I hope there’s a huge turn out to give Margo the send off she diserves and the STV ( now declared “unbiased” ) ensure good coverage of this day of Scottish national grief.
@ grunt
Thank you so much; a great laugh, especially with the sound on. Posted on FB.
Got the links to Punch a Celeb and Blunkett’s Dog?
Sorry about the bum link
This one should work
link to tinyurl.com
I thought the ‘what women want’ programme last night was patronising and very poorly made,dumbed down nonsense!
Do they really think women are stupid?
On the other hand morning call on radio scotland this morning was excellent,many women giving good points and most of the men(the NOs especially)coming across as sexist!
I do find more women are undecided on the doorstep,but as the weeks go on more are going to YES as they find out more.Managed to convince my neice as well this week.
Gordon Brown and Pensions. I can think of 100,000,000,000 reasons not to believe a word this man says. I’m an ex Labour party member and I’m ashamed of the truth that’s out about Brown and the UK’s pension legacy.
Likewise Debbiethebruce,
I convinced my niece and nephew this week, also get their parents in the bag, I am struggling to find a No voter to convert now, even the previous die hards UK’ists that I worked on previously are going over to Yes, just takes time and I ask plenty questions to find out why they WERE going to vote no, and most of the persuassion is in the one liner…. you do know the BBC and rest of the media in Scotland is controled from London, don’t you?
This morning I sent an email to the Electoral Commission, and asked if they should be requesting the BBC sign up as No. Just as the CBI.
As there is ample evidence that they ARE bias and are manipulating their position to enhance a NO vote.
This surely ( as we all know ) is undemocratic. I therefore have asked them if not why not. I wait with bated breath for the fudge!
“Why does Brown keep getting special treatment from the press ??”
He has a slot to promote his new book (in the Homecoming Scotland Marquee, no less) at the Borders Book Festival on Saturday 14th June, described as – “his vision of Scottishness, Britishness, the unique nature of the union, how it might change and how Scotland might lead Britain, not leave it. This will be a landmark moment in the independence debate.”
Landmark moment! He thinks he still matters.
@Jim T. 10.15.
No pages missing in mine Jim. Perhaps you got a copy that a BT plant managed to get his hands on as it was going through the press.
Anybody else get a badly printed edition of Scotland’s Future? It might be important.
Fergie35, if you’re running out of No voters, Yes Borders needs help….
@Ian Brotherhood
I think it’s a fantastic idea about serious bloggers being allowed access to these events. Would they have to register with the NUJ to get access? I presume they won’t just let anyone attend but I think it’s something that has to be faced in today’s environment.
As has been mentioned by mainstream journalists in reference to Rangers Football Club, the bloggers like RTC were able to access a wealth of information and employ a massive team of researchers around the clock that the MSM just weren’t able to, and these people were extremely knowledgeable in areas of tax, finance and criminal law, among others.
Given that such people lead the issue and were a year ahead of the MSM, I think it has shown that internet bampots can be a powerful voice and need to be heard. I’m fed up with politicians not being asked the hard questions because the media is so one-sided. It’s time for the other side to be heard!
Heather and IB – the Rev’s a member of the NUJ. Just saying. 🙂
@TJenny
Thank you! I didn’t know! He needs to get himself along then, although, no doubt he will be passed over for asking questions 😛
@Jim T. 10.15.
My copy is fine.
@Heather & TJenny –
Sorry, didn’t see your comments until now.
Plenty of us have letters after our names which signify this that or t’other. Is it only NUJ people can get into these events?
Last year or maybe year before (?!) I was asked to organise a talk for Social Media Week, which was being held in Glasgow. I proposed a seminar on the rangerstaxcase blogger, who had just won the Orwell Prize. I asked Mike Small of BellaC and Prof David Miller of Bath Uni (previously Strathclyde, Glasgow Media Unit etc) to speak, and both agreed. On the day, Prof Miller couldn’t make it, so I had to stand in.
It went fine. Not a huge audience, but no-one questioned our credentials – we just went ahead and did it. I’m no more ‘qualified’ to speak about this stuff than the next person, but did the homework, prepared material, and (as chance would have it) ended up having to use it.
There must be stacks of WOS readers who have all sorts of qualifications which entitle them to legitimately request access to these ‘Press conferences’ on the grounds that they represent the interests of their peers. For example, I’m a member of Scottish PEN, which is of precisely zero practical use on a daily basis. But if it gave me any chance of getting access to these things then I’d gladly wing it.
The ‘boys-club’ mentality associated with these staged beanfeasts has had its day. The usual MSM suspects have proved, time and again, that they cannot/will not ask the questions being shouted at radios and televisions nationwide. There’s no reason to hope that they’ll start doing it anytime soon, so we have to – but before we can? we need to find ‘a way in’.
[…] been said by Messrs Brown and Smith. (The Wee Ginger Dug blog is particularly accurate on Smith and Wings Over Scotland neatly dissects the ‘statistics’ used by Gordon Brown.) Who is next to deliver their pearls of […]
I’m sick and tired of the propaganda on either side – WoS is as guilty as anyone of this. All i ask is you just read this and have a wee think. When will the Yes campaign actually spell out what it’s going to do instead of making emotionally charged promises? The latest from Mr Salmond re high speed rail and a feasibility study if there’s a yes vote – transport is devolved so why no study now if it’s soooo important?
Anyway, to the case in point – pensions – this today from the no axe to grind Institute and Faculty of Actuaries (that’s “people who actually know something about pensions and what they cost” to you and me).
“The cost of supporting pensioners needs to be met from taxes or National Insurance contributions, the majority of which is paid by those of working age. However, in Scotland the number of working-age people is projected to increase more slowly than the rest of the UK. This means it is likely that pensions for the growing pensioner population will require a greater proportion of government expenditure in Scotland in decades to come.
“The work undertaken by the UK Government, outlined in today’s paper, offers helpful new data and analysis demonstrating the amount and value of benefits provided to people in Scotland and across the UK. Whilst the political debate will continue, having this information presented in this way enables a more informed discussion.
“Today’s report follows the policy outline of the Scottish Government’s proposals for pensions should Scotland become independent. With this additional context, we believe that ahead of September’s vote, the public would be better informed by more detail from the Scottish Government on how the additional costs and risks of running its own pensions system would be managed within an independent Scotland.
“As an independent professional body with a Royal Charter the IFoA is working with both the UK and Scottish Governments. Doing so serves the public interest by informing the debate on these important issues ahead of September’s referendum.
“We look forward to continuing to work with all key stakeholders in this debate, regardless of their stance on the question of independence.””
link to actuaries.org.uk
“I’m sick and tired of the propaganda on either side – WoS is as guilty as anyone of this. All i ask is you just read this and have a wee think. When will the Yes campaign actually spell out what it’s going to do instead of making emotionally charged promises?”
Sigh. What’s the question you want answered? How will pensions be paid for? They’ll be paid for IN EXACTLY THE SAME WAY THEY ARE NOW, ie from taxation. We tax working people, we pay pensions out of that tax.
That’s it. That’s the answer. It is a complete answer. There is no more “detail” to be had, because everything else – how many pensioners we’ll have in 20 years, how many taxpayers – is IN THE FUTURE, and therefore NOBODY KNOWS. The government of the time will deal with it in whatever the most appropriate way is, and we haven’t the slightest idea what that will be because we don’t know what policies governments will have implemented in the intervening time, eg around immigration and employment and wages.
For the millionth time – independence is a PRINCIPLE, not a POLICY. We’re not making ANY decisions about pensions in September. We’re deciding who we want to elect our governments. Everything else is politics, and comes after that.
@ Oor Wullie
I repeat: the number of working age people DOES NOT MATTER.
What matters is the dependency ratio. It is no accident that this is left out of most discussions on this issue because they do not want you to think.
So long as we do not have full employment then many of those working age people are in the same position as pensioners: you are putting them on the wrong side of the equation. Same goes for those in low paid work
Neoclassical economists are committed to permanent high rates of unemployment and to permanently low wages. If you accept those hidden premises then their panic attack about pensions makes some surface sense
Why do you accept those premises? Why do the actuaries you quote?
Even assuming you have a reason for accepting it what do you propose to do? We can’t afford pensions so they elderly will just have to starve? That is the logic of what they are arguing and the reality is that there is NO evidence at all that we can’ afford social security.
Oops
“NO evidence at all that we can’t afford social security”
Apologies 🙁
Fair enough, Rev. So if I don’t want Scottish OAP’s pensions to be subsidised by English taxpayers and have Scottish workers taxed more to meet the bill for pensions, then I should vote “yes”. Thanks for clearing that up.
Fiona – what is a “neoclassical economist”? And why would any economist be “committed to high rates of unemployment”?
Are you mad?
And actuaries do not accept the “premises” you mention. They calculate future costs based on assumptions which, in turn are based on historical statistics regarding demographics. Regardless of politics.
Why is it wrong to ask the Scottish Government to confirm or deny with figures calculated by impartial experts that, if we have independence, the tax bill to meet pensions for Scottish pensioners will be higher per head of population than it would be if we remained part of the UK?
Is it against the “Principle” of Independence to ask valid questions and expect coherent answers?
It seems so.
Why are you so scared of hard facts? I find it bewildering how this site started off so well, giving us facts which the official “yes” camp seemed unable to do but now seems to have become an unbalanced home for backslapping non-debaters with independence fixations.
Very sad.
@ Oor Wullie
Once again the site has not let me post a reply
So I put it here
link to thosebigwords.forumcommunity.net
PS: I put answers to others which also failed to post on the same site; one for galamcennalath and one for Bugger (the Panda)
I do this cos I like ongoing discussion but this board moves too quick for me (and also makes posts disappear sometimes) There is no obligation to read those posts at all 🙂
@Oor Wullie – You don’t get much more impartial than this..
link to tinyurl.com
Thanks Fiona for your answer posted elsewhere which I do appreciate re the definition of a “neoclassical economist”.
Croompenstein – thanks for the link – in which Standard & Poors are quoted as saying:-
“In brief, we would expect Scotland to benefit from all the attributes of an investment-grade sovereign credit characterized by its wealthy economy (roughly the size of New Zealand’s), high-quality human capital, flexible product and labor markets, and transparent institutions,”
“Nevertheless, the newly formed sovereign state would begin life with comparatively high levels of public debt, sensitivity to oil prices, and, depending on the nature of arrangements with the EU or UK, potentially limited monetary flexibility.
“At the same time, Scotland’s external position in terms of liquidity and investment could be subject to volatility should banks leave.
“On the other hand, if this were to happen, it could bring benefits in terms of reducing the size of the Scottish economy’s external balance sheet, normalizing the size of its financial sector, and reducing contingent liabilities for the state.
“In short, the challenge for Scotland to go it alone would be significant, but not unsurpassable.”
So, would supporters of the “yes” campaign say “the high initial cost of independence to current Scottish taxpayers is a price worth paying for said independence”?
Or do they say “there will there be no additional cost for independence to current Scottish taxpayers”?
Which is it?
Surey a simple question to answer? Though probably not!
There are no simple answers in economics, Oor Wullie. That is by design, because the charlatans who pretend it is a science couch their theories in obscure language and in mathematical models. The aim is to make the rest of us say “it is all too complicated: better leave it to the experts”
I do not give any credence at all to S&P; not when their pronouncements favour my position and not when they are to its detriment. This is because the ratings agencies gave tripe A ratings to junk and thus were wholly complicit in the financial crash: and because the people they are assessing pay for the assessments. On what planet does that lead to objectivity?
You will not that S&P, as quoted above, state that Scotland “will have comparatively high levels of public debt”. That is but one example of a smuggled in assumption and it is typical of this kind of debate: for they say absolutely nothing about why that would matter, even if it were true.
If you build your argument on such premises first you have to demonstrate that they are true; and that they are irreducible. It is part of the advance of plutocratic hegemony that they begin every argument with such premises and, naturally, all else follows: so if you do not notice or question the underlying hypothesis you do not understand what is wrong with the argument. And, as with a lot of things, it is very difficult to grasp what is assumed unless you are an expert in the field
To take this example: What is wrong with a high level of public debt? That is a serious question which demands an answer before we can go any further: you will notice that they assume there is something wrong with it. As it happens one of the periods of greatest growth and prosperity in the uk was after WW2: when public debt stood at some 260% of GDP. Historically, public debt has averaged about 80% of GDP for the last 200 or so years. Now we are told that the sky will fall if public debt is greater than 60%. Do you know why that is? What has changed that this is suddenly a problem? The answer is “nothing at all”. But it does justify the austerity agenda which this government wishes to pursue.
Then there is the assertion that Scotland will have that high public debt. Orly? Where is that going to come from? Why is that taken for granted. From where I am sitting there are a number of possibilities: both Scotland and rUK could be continuator states; and in that case Scotland would indeed have a share of the debt. Or Westminster are correct in saying rUK will be the sole continuator state; and in that case Scotland begins life debt free. Unless, of course, the rUK agrees to currency union; in which case the Scottish Government have agreed to voluntarily accept a share of the public debt.
Can you see from this that there are no simple answers of the sort you seek? Life is uncertain and this situation is no different.
What is certainly true, if you cut through the crap, is that Scotland is a nation like any other. Either it is a basket case, in which case the only possible reason for that is membership of the union, because that is the only consistent difference between Scotland and all other developed north european nations, which do fine. Or it is a normal economy like all those other nations, and there is no reason to suppose that we cannot succeed as they do. If the first is true we need to get out and to face the problems which arise from the distortions we have suffered. If the second is true it presents no problem wrt to the case for independence, and that decision should be made on other grounds
Personally I think the truth is somewhere in the middle: economic and social policy has not been designed to meet Scotland’s particular situation and this has indeed led to some adverse consequences for Scotland as it has for the north of england and for wales as well as other regions in the UK. I do not think they are big enough to have crippled us but I am certain that we will prosper in the long run if decisions are taken here. But to the extent there has been some cost to membership of the union there may well be transitional difficulties: and to that same extent that is a reason to support a yes vote.
@Oor Wullie – And why would any economist be “committed to high rates of unemployment”?
Are you mad?
Here is a take on that subject..
link to politicaleconomy.ie
Hi Fiona
Thanks for your response.
You did not answer the question – would supporters of the “yes” campaign say “the high initial cost of independence to current Scottish taxpayers is a price worth paying for said independence”?
Or do they say “there will there be no additional cost for independence to current Scottish taxpayers”?
Which is it?
I do not doubt that, in the long run, an independent Scotland could be successful.
What I am looking for is an answer as to whether the “yes” campaign believes said future success (which of course presupposes a much less welfare/govt employment dependent nation than we have now) may necessarily have an initial cost to current taxpayers (which they may well be happy to support for the sake of the future potential benefit independence may bring to their children or grandchildren).
I accept your arguments re debt but would welcome your view on the cost of borrowing which an independent Scotland would face compared to the same cost which the UK would have to endure.
Is it likely to be (a) higher (b) about the same (c) lower?
Croompenstein – many thanks for the link – I have read the article in question but it assumes we live in a capitalist society.
We do not. A “true” Capitalist Society would have very little (if any) in the way of govt intervention in the economy
The level of govt intervention around the world to stop “fat cats” and others from “losing their shirts” since the financial crisis points to nothing like Capitalism.
And, pre the crisis, the levels of govt intervention, particularly in the UK, to allow debt to fuel a false boom, pointed too to the fact that in no way were we living in a Capitalist society.
Hello Wullie
I have not answered your question because, once again, it is not as simple as that
First: I do not think there is a consensus in the “Yes campaign” about how Scotland should arrange its affairs post-independence. That sounds like wriggling I suppose, but it really matters
The current Scottish government wants CU. If that is what we get then there are no additional costs in terms of borrowing which arise from independence. That is because the situation will be largely unchanged.
However you will notice that the UK has relatively low borrowing costs and you might want to ask yourself why that is, in view of the enormous amount of debt it has. If the conventional picture were correct then the UK’s cost of borrowing should be quite high.
To me that is the clue. The fact is that a country with a sovereign currency cannot default on debt issued in its own currency: the creditor will always be paid because there is no fixed amount of money. We left the gold standard long ago and a great deal of what is said on this subject simply ignores that fact.
There are unexamined assumptions which underly your question, which I do not accept. The very foundation of your question is the idea that governments get money from the taxpayer. Ms Thatcher promulgated that one with her “governments have no money of their own” and that is heavily promoted as a premise upon which to build all sorts of plutocratic arguments and to justify all sorts of right wing policies.
The fact is that the situation is exactly the other way around. All money comes from the government ultimately. Nobody else is allowed to print it. That is pretty much what being a government means, in a sovereign state. Where a sovereign state does not have a sovereign currency that is no longer true, and, for me, to do that is to surrender sovereignty to an unacceptable extent.
The countries in the eurozone do not have sovereign currencies. That is the problem which leads to the austerity for Greece and Ireland and the other peripheral countries. They have no direct source of money and so they must borrow. As with any creditor that gives the markets a great deal of control: and every bit of control they get is a bit which is no longer under the control of the elected government. The contempt for democracy is seen in the appointment of “technocrats” and the “Troika” to run those countries which are in trouble: those are not technocrats in any meaningful sense of the word: they are just receivers in bankruptcy. Like all such receivers they are not acting on behalf of the bankrupt: they are acting on behalf of the creditors. It is no accident that they are called technocrats, however: that is part of the overall plutocratic strategy of persuading people that there is something scientific and objective about their economic analysis. There isn’t: it is all politics.
So if Scotland chooses a sovereign currency, as I would prefer, it has no need to borrow at all. The UK has no need to borrow either. It just pretends it does because otherwise there is no smokescreen for the austerity they wish to impose. It follows that if the cost of borrowing is too high, a sovereign state can meet its needs through printing money instead. If you accept that you can see that your question about the cost of borrowing is premature: you have to question the underlying assumption and start from there
That it is complex is shown by the fact that Norway borrows on the markets: that is an interesting case because Norway has absolutely no need to do that at all in terms of the conventional story about government debt and deficit. They are accumulating an oil fund and if it was merely a question of paying for public services etc, as we are told, they would not borrow: they would save at a lower rate instead. They don’t.
That is because the point of borrowing rather than printing is to take money out of the economy when that is necessary. It is aimed at producing financial stability, not at paying for public services.
I hope that brief account shows why this is a difficult subjec,t given the water we swim in: that water is not clean: it is polluted by slogans and assumptions we cannot by now easily see. As Mark Twain said, and I am fond of quoting “It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so”
Thanks for your response Fiona, which I enjoyed reading – even though, as you say, you don’t actually answer the question – which I am perfectly willing to forgive. Many thanks indeed.
Your Mark Twain quote is apt and to the point – best not to be certain on anything and keep an open mind.
But then do we really need to let the Scottish Government away with not actually “costing” any of its promises?
Do we really need to let them away with not saying what they would do re currency if the UK refuses CU? (I cannot think why the UK would agree to CU and underwrite the debts of what would be a foreign nation).
If I am to be a “yes” voter (which I may be come the day), I want to know the facts behind what has been, until now, a seemingly singularly “emotional” argument with the only retort to questions of fact being that the “no” campaign is guilty of bluster and bullying.
In a referendum, the majority of “Don’t Knows” always end up voting for the status quo.
Wings Over Scotland doesn’t need to convince “yes” voters to vote “yes”. Anyone who is a “yes” voter will definitely be out there on polling day casting their vote.
You need to convince “don’t knows” and most “don’t knows” will not be convinced by the weak emotional arguments and lack of hard costed facts coming from the “yes” campaign.
Give us the facts and, if they look good, we’ll vote “yes”. Be honest with us and, if we can see the long term benefit, albeit that there’s a short term cost (which, if your numbers reveal there may be you need to admit to it), then we (might just) vote “yes”.
Sorry to bang on about the cost of borrowing again but, if Scotland has no CU with the UK, it cannot print money but instead must borrow – at market rates which will be higher than those which the UK enjoys re its borrowing. The cost of borrowing cannot be magicked away – someone must pay, surely – or am I missing something?
I note the Rev has been silent on whether the “principle” of independence is worth the possible initial cost for the long term “gains”. But he’s probably moved on.
Not to worry
Well you make a number of assertions here and I thought I had dealt with some of them.
For example, you say that there is no reason why the rUK would agree to a CU. Have you read the fiscal commission report? It sets out why they believe it is in rUK’s interest to do that. You may disagree with the reasoning, but if you do you need to show why. Westminster has not done that: they made a flat assertion but as ever, the focus is on asking the Scottish government to cost policy. The same demand is not made of Westminster.
If they refuse CU they take on the whole of the UK debt (assuming they are the sole continutor state, as they claim). At the same time they pretend to accept the mainstream economic analysis which says that public debt is a big problem – indeed the biggest problem they have. It is worth impoverishing people to get it down (though they can’t even manage that in the current situation). What are the costs for the ordinary “taxpayer” in rUK of taking on even more debt? What are the implications for rUK’s interest rates? We are not told. It is important to look at what is not said, when considering the arguments made.
As to your demand for a “Plan B” on currency. For reasons such as I give above the Scottish government does not believe CU will be rejected. I disagree with them, largely because I think that austerity is actually the aim at Westminster: not the means. If that is correct they will gladly reject CU and impose the costs on the poor and the vulnerable: and blame the Scots. That will be handy because the narrative that is the fault of the benefits scroungers together with the last government is beginning to wear thin. A new story is required and this may well be it.
You say that you perceive the argument as emotional, so far. It is true that some people found on a sense of national identity and that may be described as emotional. But it is not true that there are no facts. That is something which is charged by the No side. There is no element of emotion in my conclusions: I have made a long and slow transition in coming to support yes: and I have done it precisely by researching what facts I can find. I am not comfortable with such concepts as “love of country”, because I come from a socialist tradition which is internationalist in character and in sentiment. Many have made the same journey and it is nothing to do with emotion
What is your evidence that a majority of “don’t knows” vote for the status quo in a referendum? I have seen nothing but an assertion to that effect from one Nate Silver: who has no knowledge of Scotland and no knowledge of referendums at all. I do not know what you find in your own circle: in mine “don’t knows” appear to be genuine. They are not, so far as I can tell, shy “no’s”. Of course they may be and that might be because they know where I stand: but most of them are not folk easily cowed, and certainly not by me
I have tried to give you some facts, but you are not satisfied with uncertainty and so you seem to reject the fact of uncertainty as in some sense an evasion. It isn’t. Only the dishonest political plutocrats pretend to certainty and by now we are used to that. It is, quite frankly, childish. The world is uncertain.
You assert that if there is no CU Scotland cannot print money. Ask yourself why you are sure about that? Where did the information come from? One of the viable alternatives for a Scottish currency is a sovereign currency: and that is the option I prefer even if CU is now offered. If we choose that option we can indeed print money: it is that level of sovereignty which makes it an attractive option. So why do you assume that will not be the outcome? Is it perhaps another of the unexamined assumptions smuggled in to prop up the unionist case? Or do you have a genuine reason for presuming that?
Even if I accept that is true, and that Scotland will not have CU nor its own currency, why would borrowing costs be higher than those in rUK once its debt increases and its revenue falls in a post independence world? Why do you take that as fact?
Hi Fiona
thanks again for another excellent response. I can’t spend too much time coming back to you but will try and make a few points quickly.
Fiscal Commission Report is neither here nor there re a decision which will be taken by the UK. 40% of the UK’s exports go to the EU, 20% to the USA and only 10% would go to an independent Scotland. Why would the UK want to enter CU with a fledgling country that accounts for only 10% of GDP when there’d be four times the logic in going into the Euro? And you know the chances of the UK ever going into the Euro.
The crucial point is that we are being asked to go to the poll without knowing what our currency will be if we gain independence. Uncertainty.
You also seem to assume that Scotland will gain independence and simply walk away from its share of the UK debt? Uncertainty
It’s fair enough for you to seem to say that uncertainty is the key and that my asking for facts is “childish” because everything’s so uncertain.
But the reason I’m looking for facts is it’s precisely this that leads “don’t knows” to vote for the status quo. They need to be convinced of the argument. Without facts, with only uncertainty, that is a difficult task.
If someone remains a “don’t know” as they approach the polling booth, they will not vote for change – it’s human nature I’m afraid.
If you study the results of referenda held in the UK, you will find that voters tend to dislike change (no matter what they may tell pollsters when asked an abstract question). The exceptions to this have only been when the change proposed in a referendum is backed by a coalition of most/all the major parties.
As regards Scotland having its own currency and your question as to why that would prove “more expensive” than remaining in the UK with the pound is precisely because borrowing costs would be higher and taxation would need to be higher. I’m surprised you’re just not getting that.
It’s all about credit and currency risk, with which I’m sure you’re familiar.
How is it that the UK with such huge debt manages to borrow at such a low cost? Could Scotland do the same? No. Plain and simple.
Anyway, sorry I can’t go into more detail but time is tight.
Best to you and glad you’ve been able to make your mind up on matters
thanks
Of course the fiscal commission’s report is relevant. It sets out the reasons why it would be in rUK’s interest to agree to that. As I said, I hope that they are not bluffing in saying they will reject it, because that is not the outcome I prefer. But to compare it with joining the eurozone makes no sense: the rUK does not share its debt with eurozone countries and it does not get revenue directly from the tax on oil resources based in the eurozone.
I think they will reject currency union for the reasons I gave: cutting off your nose is not unknown in diplomacy, and a new scapegoat is required if those impoverished by Westminster policy are to continue to put the blame in the wrong place and so ensure there is no effective opposition to the dismantling of the social democratic welfare state.
You may agree or disagree: but you may not ask for facts and then refuse to even think about the facts provided. You have said absolutely nothing about the consequences for rUK of rejecting currency union, and how those will impact their decison if the vote is yes.
You argue that Scotland may face costs and austerity if the vote is yes: and suggest that may be a reason for voting no. Scotland will certainly face those things if it stays in the union: there is no doubt about that, for the cuts are to be made no matter who wins the Westminster elections. Before anyone can say whether they might be less than what an independent Scotland may face we have to know what size they will be: has Westminster told you? They have not. They cannot: for these things are uncertain.
If Scotland does not get a CU with the UK; and if it is not a continuator state, then it has no debt. There is no doubt about that at all. To voluntarily accept a share of debt you do not owe in return for nothing worth having is stupid. To accept a situation where such debt is owed in a foreign currency is potential economic suicide. So again I ask, why do you think Scotland might do that? If you are so certain that the rUK will lose if it accepts CU (and I don’t agree with that); and you believe that it will not accept CU on those (allegedly rational ) grounds, then why do you not apply the same reasoning to the debt? Scotland won’t take the debt because it would be detrimental to do that. Just like the rUK won’t accept CU because they perceive it to be detrimental. You are not applying the same standards even within your own terms, so far as I can see.
I did not say asking for facts is childish, as you suggest. I said that asking for facts where there are none is childish. There is a degree of inherent uncertainty which is irreducible.
Which referendums in the UK are you talking about?
Why would borrowing costs be higher for Scotland? You have asserted this more than once and I have explained why that is not certain: it is not even likely. So it is your turn.
Explain your perception of the facts and the reasoning which leads you to the conclusion that Scotland’s borrowing costs would be higher.
Then explain why taxation would need to be higher even if you were correct
Then explain why you say How is it that the UK with such huge debt manages to borrow at such a low cost? Could Scotland do the same? No. Plain and simple. when I have already given my view as to why the UK can borrow at low cost and you have ignored that point
Then explain why higher tax is a bad thing, assuming you can make your case for the first three
Sorry if this sounds a little tetchy. I understand that you are in a hurry but it seems to me that you ask for facts and I try to give you some: and you completely ignore what I say and go back to your original assertions, without explaining why you think I am wrong
That is no way to run a discussion, IMO. As I said before, nobody can make you understand a different point of view if you are determined not to: but if that is the case you are wasting my time and yours
Hi Fiona – thanks again for taking the time to respond so fully. But yes, time is tight and I really don’t have it available to continue. I note your points and understand your arguments. And I thank you again for patiently setting out your views. I may well return to this forum but, at present I have more pressing matters to deal with. If Scotland does end up voting for independence, I hope all will turn out well. It’s a big step but nothing ventured nothing gained. I remain undecided.
Best