Confidemus Posted August 24, 2014 Share Posted August 24, 2014 Or trust Ian Wood? He said he was wrong in Feb, why is he right now? Because it suits BTUKOK's litany of lies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boabinoban Posted August 24, 2014 Share Posted August 24, 2014 Or trust Ian Wood? He said he was wrong in Feb, why is he right now? Aye that an aw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeeTillEhDeh Posted August 24, 2014 Share Posted August 24, 2014 NCC in full clown mode here. We are talking about the ACTUAL REAL SHORTFALL in the Scottish Government's own prediction of oil revenues for 2013/14. That's based on the figures of actual income published on 14 August. As opposed to the fantasy estimate for 2013/14 that had it as double. The SG are using these flawed estimates for their own budgetting - they are already saying they will have to borrow to cover the existing shortfall of £2.4 billion in 2018/19. If their estinates are wrong this year why on earth should we believe them beyond that? Where I do disagree is how this will be financed - the press are saying higher taxes or reduce spending commitments - there is the option of borrowing more than they intended. If that is the case then least be bloody honest about it instead of going down this fantasy route. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Confidemus Posted August 24, 2014 Share Posted August 24, 2014 NCC in full clown mode here. And that's as far as I got. Mask. Slipped. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeeTillEhDeh Posted August 24, 2014 Share Posted August 24, 2014 And that's as far as I got. Mask. Slipped. You are though - deliberately obtuse because the actual figures are nowhere near the estimated figures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeeTillEhDeh Posted August 24, 2014 Share Posted August 24, 2014 And that's as far as I got. Mask. Slipped. PS If think you're being clowns I'll call you for it. Just as I said H_B was a twat over Anthony C Pick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Confidemus Posted August 24, 2014 Share Posted August 24, 2014 You are though - deliberately obtuse because the actual figures are nowhere near the estimated figures. For the millionth time, whether the figures are 15bn or 24bn or 64 kablillion, it's all gravy. We're rich even without factoring in a drop of the black stuff,. 24bn is not unfeasible, btw, as much as you want to deny it. Same goes for discoveries and production. Who knows what's out there. Keep up with the desperation though. Nasty, nasty oil! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blaven Posted August 24, 2014 Share Posted August 24, 2014 Seen someone post this on FB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tubbs Posted August 24, 2014 Share Posted August 24, 2014 What definition of rich are we using? Spending more money than you have? but still saving some? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blaven Posted August 24, 2014 Share Posted August 24, 2014 What definition of rich are we using? Spending more money than you have? but still saving some? To who and about what are you slavering aboot ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doulikefish Posted August 24, 2014 Share Posted August 24, 2014 What definition of rich are we using? Spending more money than you have? but still saving some? What are you on about today?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tubbs Posted August 24, 2014 Share Posted August 24, 2014 To who and about what are you slavering aboot ? Sorry; for the hard of thinking someone previously spoke about being 'rich' - it might have been a whole 2 posts before mine, so people with the attention span of a goldfish have struggled with this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Confidemus Posted August 24, 2014 Share Posted August 24, 2014 Sorry; for the hard of thinking someone previously spoke about being 'rich' - it might have been a whole 2 posts before mine, so people with the attention span of a goldfish have struggled with this. You're getting a bit touchy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HardyBamboo Posted August 24, 2014 Share Posted August 24, 2014 NCC in full clown mode here. We are talking about the ACTUAL REAL SHORTFALL in the Scottish Government's own prediction of oil revenues for 2013/14. That's based on the figures of actual income published on 14 August. As opposed to the fantasy estimate for 2013/14 that had it as double. The SG are using these flawed estimates for their own budgetting - they are already saying they will have to borrow to cover the existing shortfall of £2.4 billion in 2018/19. If their estinates are wrong this year why on earth should we believe them beyond that? Where I do disagree is how this will be financed - the press are saying higher taxes or reduce spending commitments - there is the option of borrowing more than they intended. If that is the case then least be bloody honest about it instead of going down this fantasy route. Sorry if I have missed this earlier, can you link me to the report or article please? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HaikuHibee Posted August 24, 2014 Share Posted August 24, 2014 What definition of rich are we using? Spending more money than you have? but still saving some? Are you so right wing? We don't spend more than we have. Who told you we did? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HaikuHibee Posted August 24, 2014 Share Posted August 24, 2014 NCC in full clown mode here. We are talking about the ACTUAL REAL SHORTFALL in the Scottish Government's own prediction of oil revenues for 2013/14. That's based on the figures of actual income published on 14 August. As opposed to the fantasy estimate for 2013/14 that had it as double. The SG are using these flawed estimates for their own budgetting - they are already saying they will have to borrow to cover the existing shortfall of £2.4 billion in 2018/19. If their estinates are wrong this year why on earth should we believe them beyond that? Where I do disagree is how this will be financed - the press are saying higher taxes or reduce spending commitments - there is the option of borrowing more than they intended. If that is the case then least be bloody honest about it instead of going down this fantasy route. What a shitty post. The Tory way or no way. You sure you're Labour? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Confidemus Posted August 24, 2014 Share Posted August 24, 2014 Are you so right wing? We don't spend more than we have. Who told you we did? Sssssh.... A recent study by the CEBR think tank, based on official tax and spending figures, concludes that Scotland's North Sea oil and gas revenues, with other taxes, means it gets no net subsidy from the rest of the UK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tubbs Posted August 24, 2014 Share Posted August 24, 2014 Sssssh.... A recent study by the CEBR think tank, based on official tax and spending figures, concludes that Scotland's North Sea oil and gas revenues, with other taxes, means it gets no net subsidy from the rest of the UK. http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0041/00418420.pdf Deficit of over £7bn ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
git-intae-thum Posted August 24, 2014 Share Posted August 24, 2014 http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0041/00418420.pdf Deficit of over £7bn ? Here we go again. Its like trying to explain things to bits of wood. That deficit is proportionately smaller than that which the UK currently runs. Scotland is wealthier than the rest of the UK. That is also prior to Scotland cutting out all the needless extravagence like Trident, HS2, cross rail etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HaikuHibee Posted August 24, 2014 Share Posted August 24, 2014 http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0041/00418420.pdf Deficit of over £7bn ? This means that over the past five years, Scotland could have had higher spending, for example on infrastructure investment, and/or lower taxation and still had a smaller fiscal deficit than the UK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.