ayrmad Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 From the actual report; "The researchers estimate that an independent Scotland would face additional interest rate costs of between 0.72% to 1.65% above the UK borrowing costs for 10 year debt (or technically a spread of 72 to 165 basis points over the average 10 year UK bond yield of 4.10% between 2000 and 2012)." A couple of important words missed out there. That's just the MO from NO on here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 You actually don't know what your talking about, go and look at oil revenues as a % of GDP back then and compare them to now. What is the current % of GDP? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 How much would Scotland have to borrow to meet its current spending commitments (ignoring the setup costs which are never factored into independence) if no oil revenues were received? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayrmad Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 How much would Scotland have to borrow to meet its current spending commitments (ignoring the setup costs which are never factored into independence) if no oil revenues were received? Give me all the figures and I will tell you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayrmad Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 From the IFS Allocating Scotland a geographical share of North Sea revenues leads to similar trends over time: a rise in the importance of North Sea oil and gas during the early 1980s, followed by a dramatic fall and then a partial reversal. However, the importance of North Sea revenues to Scotland becomes much greater. On this basis, they peaked at 49% of Scotland’s overall revenue in 1984–85, and averaged 16% of revenue over the period from 2005–06 to 2011–12. Almost half our revenue came from oil in 1984-85 now we're averaging a sixth of our revenue coming from oil, we're at 99% of the UK's level without oil, why is it not now just a wee bonus rather than something we would have relied on back then? FTR I want to see an independent Scotland spending prudently, if that means cuts in some years so be it. Going by recent trends we could spend an extra £2billion a year and still be comparable with Ruk, after all we spent over £12 billion less than our income should have delivered from Westminster over the last 4 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 Give me all the figures and I will tell you. Eh, what? It's you that's claiming the oil revenues are a "bonus". Even using a geographical share, Scotland is running at a deficit currently. So, we earn £1000. We are spending £1100 say, so having to borrow money every month to top up our earnings, and you are claiming that £200 of the earnings are a "bonus". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 we spent over £12 billion less than our income should have delivered from Westminster over the last 4 years. What? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayrmad Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 Eh, what? It's you that's claiming the oil revenues are a "bonus". Even using a geographical share, Scotland is running at a deficit currently. So, we earn £1000. We are spending £1100 say, so having to borrow money every month to top up our earnings, and you are claiming that £200 of the earnings are a "bonus". UK runs at a huge deficit that won't be sorted in my lifetime, we've comparably got 99% of their income to expenditure without oil, oil if used the correct way can/will see us running at a surplus at some point in the future. If the UK suddenly just found an extra 21% of annual revenue you'd be crowing about it, with Scotland 21% extra appears to be a burden. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 UK runs at a huge deficit that won't be sorted in my lifetime, we've comparably got 99% of their income to expenditure without oil, oil if used the correct way can/will see us running at a surplus at some point in the future. If the UK suddenly just found an extra 21% of annual revenue you'd be crowing about it, with Scotland 21% extra appears to be a burden. Scotland's share of the debt should it become independent also won't be sorted in your lifetime. The UK ran at a surplus at many points through the 90s. It will again in the future, within our lifetimes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HardyBamboo Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 Scotland's share of the debt should it become independent also won't be sorted in your lifetime. The UK ran at a surplus at many points through the 90s. It will again in the future, within our lifetimes. Did it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayrmad Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 Scotland's share of the debt should it become independent also won't be sorted in your lifetime. The UK ran at a surplus at many points through the 90s. It will again in the future, within our lifetimes. You actually don't appear to accept the gravity of the UK's position at the moment,how much interest do you think they pay on their £1trillion+ debt? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 Did it? 1. Not inflation adjusted. 2. Not indicative of relative position to the wealth of the economy. 3. In any case, debt goes down in cash terms, real terms and as a proportion of GDP between 1990 and 1991. The same is also true of 1997-1999, incidentally when Labour followed Tory spending plans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HardyBamboo Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 You actually don't appear to accept the gravity of the UK's position at the moment,how much interest do you think they pay on their £1trillion+ debt? To save some time; More than Scotlands entire budget. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayrmad Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 1. Not inflation adjusted. 2. Not indicative of relative position to the wealth of the economy. 3. In any case, debt goes down in cash terms, real terms and as a proportion of GDP between 1990 and 1991. The same is also true of 1997-1999, incidentally when Labour followed Tory spending plans. Have the UK ran at a surplus or not in your lifetime, a simple YES or NO will do, not your usual Vicky Pollard expression. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayrmad Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 To save some time; More than Scotlands entire budget. I know,that's why I jumped from NO to YES, the numbers are quite startling when you learn what they mean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 Have the UK ran at a surplus or not in your lifetime, a simple YES or NO will do, not your usual Vicky Pollard expression. Yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayrmad Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 Yes. When. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 When. Between, roughly, 1997 and 2000. When Labour kept to Ken Clarke's spending plans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayrmad Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 Between, roughly, 1997 and 2000. When Labour kept to Ken Clarke's spending plans. No,that's just the annual surplus. How much did we owe in 1997 to 2000? Nothing? When was the last time the UK didn't have a net liability? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 No,that's just the annual surplus. How much did we owe in 1997 to 2000? Nothing? You asked me when the UK had run at a surplus in my lifetime. That means "not at a deficit" not "without any debt". You're now asking a completely different question. The UK has never "owed nothing" nor by implication has Scotland has ever "owed nothing". No modern state in the world has ever "owed nothing". To run at a surplus means that your income is greater than your outgoings as a government at that particular moment in time. It is completely different from how indebted your are. Even if Scotland were to run a surplus in good years as an independent state, it would still have debt, like every other developed country, and would still run deficits from time to time. At the moment it runs a deficit. It merely relatively speaking runs a slightly smaller deficit than the UK as a whole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.