ayrmad Posted January 16, 2014 Share Posted January 16, 2014 (edited) Knock yourself out Reynard, I've even used HMRC's experimental data for Total Tax Revenues on all my tables even although I can't get my head round the % of Income Tax apportioned to Scotland when compared to NIC's and -Tax Credits. HISTORICAL SCOTTISH BALANCE SHEET (2).zip 1.In sheets 82.5 86.25 and 90 Offshore Tax Revenues from 1999/00 are figures provided by HMRC, Offshore Tax Revenues before this are calculated using 82.5%,86.25% and 90% of GERS figures,82.5% appears to be the UK position,90% is Scotland's position and the other is the average of the 2. 2.UK Treasury 10 Yr Gilt Rate + 0.5% is averaged over the 12 months from April to March to determine the interest rate for Scotlands’ loan repayments. 3.The National Debt has been calculated by giving Scotland 9.2% of the UK National Debt as per population share. 4.Interest accrued on any surplus is calculated by adding 1% onto UK Treasury 10 Yr Gilt Rate + 0.5%. 5.Scotland would have accrued a National Debt of ~£110 billion using 82.5%,86.25% and 90% and £99 billion using GERS,. 6.Scotland would have amassed an Oil Fund of £81 billion, £102 billion and £122 billion using the above %'s and £171 billion under GERS. 7.Scotland would have a deficit of £29 billion and £8 billion using 82.5% and 86.25%. 8.Scotland would have a surplus of £12 billion using 90% and £72 billion using GERS. 9.Using 2% above interest rate as a return on the Oil Fund would return the following surplus' £10b, £37b,£64b and £146b. 10.I've not bothered about Blair stealing some oil as the figures speak for themselves anyway. Edited January 16, 2014 by ayrmad 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enigma Posted January 16, 2014 Share Posted January 16, 2014 Article from University of Reading Politics blog https://blogs.reading.ac.uk/readingpolitics/2014/01/15/scotlands-independence-referendum-do-we-already-know-the-result/ Very interesting article. It seems the best tactic from a Yes point of view, going by the article's findings, would be to run a campaign based on 'No is not status quo' and a general attack on the posh-boy and establishment aspects of Westminster politics. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
renton Posted January 16, 2014 Share Posted January 16, 2014 (edited) Article from University of Reading Politics blog https://blogs.reading.ac.uk/readingpolitics/2014/01/15/scotlands-independence-referendum-do-we-already-know-the-result/ Scot goes Pop (yes, the guy running it is pro yes, so therefore cannot be trusted!) had a go at rebutting that: http://scotgoespop.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/more-statistical-proof-that-yes-can-win.html I don't find the rebuttal particularly convincing but then I don't find the initial argument all that convincing either. Each of these referendums has been on different policies - i.e. not all independence referendums (for example) - which means the local political and emotional terrain is likely to be different - something like Scottish independence is liable to stir up more of an emotional repsonse (which can be unpredictible,if not irraitonal) and is likely to be seen as a more serious issue for those taking part than, say, the AV referendum. As such I think lumping any and all referendums together is a bit apples and oranges. Further he ignores the fact that 26% of referendums showed a swing towards Yes in the 1980s-1990s and 45% of referendums since 2000 also showed a positive swing towards Yes. Those are not insignifcant samples, and it is the comparitive size of swings that lead him to sugest that the Yes swings are insiginificant, but surely that is dependent upon what kind of swing was needed at the time and is irrelevent to his point. fact is that a significnat mnority in both cases do show positive swings. Further, it ignores the local terrain (as I touched on), the limited poling that we do have that goes beyond the headline figures suggests that More don't knows break to Yes than No by a marign of 2 to 1 - whether by the margin required or not is something that would have to be seen come the day., but presently that would suggest an overall positive swing to Yes if it carried on into the day. I don't think it's a particularly invasive or incisive analysis: Any first year student could do that - simply look at the headline figures, observe the bigger No bars than Yes, and then write a blog on it. Edited January 16, 2014 by renton 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted January 16, 2014 Share Posted January 16, 2014 Further, it ignores the local terrain (as I touched on), the limited poling that we do have that goes beyond the headline figures suggests that More don't knows break to Yes than No by a marign of 2 to 1 What polling was that? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
renton Posted January 16, 2014 Share Posted January 16, 2014 What polling was that? Ipsos-Mori I think, Autumn last year. IN that poll, even breaking 2:1, Yes still lose by about 5% so relax. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted January 16, 2014 Share Posted January 16, 2014 Ipsos-Mori I think, Autumn last year. IN that poll, even breaking 2:1, Yes still lose by about 5% so relax. Let us see it then. How exactly did they break down the "Don't Knows" into Yes and No? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayrmad Posted January 16, 2014 Share Posted January 16, 2014 (edited) Interesting to see Lamont doing a Reynard impression and totally misunderstanding economics, she even had the cheek to use his figures, either he's reading her stuff or she's lurking over his shoulder on here. Gordon McIntyre-Kemp's view of a Tory on this issue: Amanda then repeated the most misleading and economically incompetent argument of the No Campaign. She said, “Scotland receives more from the Treasury than it raises in taxes” and she finished of with the statement “that is a FACT”. I have heard Scottish Labour Leader Johann Lamont claim the same thing, but it is a completely inaccurate argument. Let me explain why: Another wee bit from Gordon McIntyre-Kemp However, when Scotland runs a deficit the UK treasury does not send the extra money we need wrapped up in a pink ribbon with a card saying ‘Dear Scotland, here is a gift.’ Its is a loan with interest that needs to be repaid by Scotland. What the Treasury does is borrow from the international money markets on behalf of the whole of the UK (which needs relatively more borrowing than Scotland) and then guess what – Scotland gets 9.3% of that borrowing but has to contribute 9.9% of the tax revenues to pay the debt back which now has roughly 3% compound interest! Scotland as part of the UK has to pay more to borrow, than the rest of the UK. So once again Scotland gets a raw deal. Having someone borrow money in your name, spend more than their fair share of it and then force you to pay back a higher percentage of the loan than you were allowed to spend DOES NOT mean you are being subsidised! Applying the No Campaign’s logic in personal credit terms would mean a person who borrows £1,000.00 from Wonga is classed as £1,000.00 richer – end of story. Except the reality is of course quite different. That person would in fact have to pay back the £1,000.00 plus the interest on the loan which they have to pay back. So in a year where Scotland is in deficit we have to pay back a higher percentage of the debt than we get to spend and plus approximately 3% interest. This means we subsidise the UK more generously in deficit years than in years when we operate a surplus and that is a FACT. Edited January 16, 2014 by ayrmad -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
renton Posted January 16, 2014 Share Posted January 16, 2014 Let us see it then. How exactly did they break down the "Don't Knows" into Yes and No? Well, your gonna have to wait some hours for me to have the time to find it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayrmad Posted January 16, 2014 Share Posted January 16, 2014 John,Jim,Julie and Reynard decide to open a small business, each puts in 25% of the total amount required £4000. They then find out that they need to take out a loan for £4000. At the end of the year they discover Reynard has spent £1600 and they've spent the rest equally between them. Julie argues that she's subsidizing Reynard because the £1000 that he put in is less than the £1600 he took out. Reynard argues that he put in 25% and only took out 20%. Who is correct? How much of the loan should Reynard pay back? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayrmad Posted January 16, 2014 Share Posted January 16, 2014 Scotland Income £56.871b... Outgoings £64.457b rUK.........Income £517.584b. Outgoings £628.629b If Scotland had received 9.9% of expenditure it would have received (9.3/9.9)x Actual Outgoings. ie £68.616b instead of £64.456b, so we spent £4.16b less than our equitable share of spending. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayrmad Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 (edited) Possibly. Although according to the much trumpeted 9.9% contribution by Scotland,that figure in cash is 56.9billion whereas the measly 9.3% of government spending is 64.5billion The rUK has subsidised Scotland in the latest set of GERS to come out in March though as oil revenue is down significantly nearly half the previous year which is how Barnett is supposed to work. 1999/00 ... 8.8% ... 9.6% ... rUK subsidised Sco *** 2000/01 ... 9.1% ... 9.5% ... rUK subsidised Sco *** 2001/02 ... 9.3% ... 9.5% ... rUK subsidised Sco *** 2002/03 ... 9.3% ... 9.7% ... rUK subsidised Sco *** 2003/04 ... 9.1% ... 9.7% ... rUK subsidised Sco *** 2004/05 ... 9.2% ... 9.5% ... rUK subsidised Sco *** 2005/06 ... 9.8% ... 9.5% ... Sco subsidised rUK 2006/07 ... 9.6% ... 9.6% ... neutral 2007/08 ... 9.5% ... 9.6% ... rUK subsidised Sco *** 2008/09 ... 10.4% ... 9.3% ... Sco subsidised rUK 2009/10 ... 9.3% ... 9.2% ... Sco subsidised rUK 2010/11 ... 9.5% ... 9.2% ... Sco subsidised rUK 2011/12 ... 9.9% ... 9.3% ... Sco subsidised rUK These are from the various GERS reports since devolution according to Scottish government figures GERS shows that Scotland subsidized rUK for £4,132,000,000 over the period you provided. That's roughly 65.5% of 1 years average Oil Tax Revenues over the period you provided. 1999/00 ... 8.3% ... 9.6% ... rUK subsidised Sco *** 2000/01 ... 8.6% ... 9.5% ... rUK subsidised Sco *** 2001/02 ... 8.8% ... 9.5% ... rUK subsidised Sco *** 2002/03 ... 8.9% ... 9.7% ... rUK subsidised Sco *** 2003/04 ... 8.7% ... 9.7% ... rUK subsidised Sco *** 2004/05 ... 8.8% ... 9.5% ... rUK subsidised Sco *** 2005/06 ... 9.5% ... 9.5% ... neutral 2006/07 ... 9.3% ... 9.6% ... rUK subsidised Sco *** 2007/08 ... 9.2% ... 9.6% ... rUK subsidised Sco *** 2008/09 ... 10.2% ... 9.3% ... Sco subsidised rUK 2009/10 ... 9.2% ... 9.2% ... neutral 2010/11 ... 9.4% ... 9.2% ... Sco subsidised rUK 2011/12 ... 9.8% ... 9.3% ... Sco subsidised rUK 2012/13 ... 9.0% ... ??? ... These are the figures from HMRC The final figures are not yet published for the last one but we already know the amount raised in percentage terms. With oil revenue having plummetted from a near record high the previous year it's a fair assumption to make that rUK subsidised Scotland. Couldn't use these experimental figures due to at least 1 item being left out of their figures(see link below), how many more omissions are there? http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/statistics/prt/og-stats.pdf Are you actually going to comment on any figures I've provided recently? After all you were goading me and accusing me of dodging the issue for the last 2 or 3 days. And stop embarrassing yourself by red dotting posts during our wee joust, it's not cool and certainly not becoming of someone who doesn't care what others think. Edited January 17, 2014 by ayrmad 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintsambo Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 Does anyone know if Panelbase conducted a December poll ? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayrmad Posted January 18, 2014 Share Posted January 18, 2014 An interesting poll from Ruk in December: At least the rest of the UK are more sensible than those representing them http://www.panelbase.com/media/polls/SNPTablesUK08102014.pdf Apparently it's only NO that think Cameron shouldn't debate with Salmond. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayrmad Posted January 18, 2014 Share Posted January 18, 2014 Does anyone know if Panelbase conducted a December poll ? It's shows on their site but when you click it nothing happens, perhaps we're fcuked. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted January 18, 2014 Share Posted January 18, 2014 Still interested to see this data that shows Don't Knows are going to Yes 2:1 renton. Sounds bollocks to me, but happy to have a look. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reynard Posted January 18, 2014 Share Posted January 18, 2014 Still interested to see this data that shows Don't Knows are going to Yes 2:1 renton. Sounds bollocks to me, but happy to have a look. Had a mini run in with that utter c**t Peter A Bell about much the same. He is under the illusion that everything is breaking the Yes way too. Delusions arseholes. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forza ton Posted January 19, 2014 Share Posted January 19, 2014 This Reynard guy seems a bit upset? What with all his swearing and abuse it's almost like he's getting rattled. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
renton Posted January 20, 2014 Share Posted January 20, 2014 Still interested to see this data that shows Don't Knows are going to Yes 2:1 renton. Sounds bollocks to me, but happy to have a look. I haven't forgotten. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
renton Posted January 20, 2014 Share Posted January 20, 2014 Still interested to see this data that shows Don't Knows are going to Yes 2:1 renton. Sounds bollocks to me, but happy to have a look. http://www.scotsman.com/news/voters-bide-time-on-scottish-independence-1-3094074 Looks like it was internal polling I was remembering the figure from, so no publically available data or methodology. Could therefore be a lot of shite. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted January 20, 2014 Share Posted January 20, 2014 http://www.scotsman.com/news/voters-bide-time-on-scottish-independence-1-3094074 Looks like it was internal polling I was remembering the figure from, so no publically available data or methodology. Could therefore be a lot of shite. Indeed. The famous SNP "internal" polling that fools no one bar the NCC. I'd expect Don't Knows to fall into the approximate same percentages as the rest of us. So about 3:2 in favour of No. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.