ayrmad Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 Scotland runs at a deficit/loss even WITH oil revenues. As for the national debt, it will NEVER be repaid ever. Nor should they ever try to clear it, that would be financial incompetence of epic proportions, they might want to say they'd clear it in this referendum debate for the sake of the financial idiots that make up the majority of voters but they shouldn't actually do it. The politicians have zero interest in bringing it down, simply managing the interest payments on all debt accrued. That will be same on both sides of any border after independence. As it should be. There is no desire to eradicate state debt. Only to make it "more manageable". If interest rates are benevolent to the state then the debt will simply continue to rise in line with ability to repay interest. Always has done, always will do. If interest rates make managing repayment tough and a default likely then you'll see slashing of state spending but until then it will carry on. Correct. For all the talk of slashing state spending in the UK it hasn't actually happened, it's still rising. The reason for that is that the debt is cheap to service. The deficit is reducing but slowly, its likely that it will be eradicated in due course to a point where thy are breaking even almost, but the debt will probably still rise regardless as long as they can manage the repayments. Which at current rates of interest for the UK debt will not be a problem. Might be the case but under independence Scotland can alter this if it wants to. If Scotland does go independent there will still be debt to service at whatever rates the markets decide to foist upon us. We will pay the UK rate on the existing debt we inherit but anything extra we borrow (and we will have to borrow) it will be at rates unknown. Can't argue with that in the short term, long term I'd expect Scotland to have a lower lending rate. There isn't going to be an oil fund in the present circumstances because at present the state spends far more than it brings in via taxation. Unless there are big cuts coming or massive tax hikes then thats how things are going to be. Choose your route. That'snot true, over the last 4 years we could have invested £12billion with our current spending and tax levels. Can you not post at this level more often on this forum instead of that bawbaggery you've been choosing to post most of the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayrmad Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 the White Paper had the full Scottish Civil service behind it. it would have been completely possible for the Scottish Government to have developed those figures to show Scotland's "true" economic picture. Why didn't they? Even without showing Scotlands "true" economic picture the financial debate isn't close,we are subsidising rUK showing a true picture would only have given no more areas to argue about and tie the debate up in knots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
banterman86 Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 Even without showing Scotlands "true" economic picture the financial debate isn't close,we are subsidising rUK showing a true picture would only have given no more areas to argue about and tie the debate up in knots. So, if the White Paper had clearly shown scotland would run a surplus, it would have "given no more areas to argue about" that's a bad thing why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayrmad Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 So, if the White Paper had clearly shown scotland would run a surplus, it would have "given no more areas to argue about" that's a bad thing why? Because a lot of the tax revenues are unclear, if YES claimed this that and the next thing the debate would be even poorer than it has been so far. It's better to put the things like whisky out separately IMHO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reynard Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 That'snot true, over the last 4 years we could have invested £12billion with our current spending and tax levels. Can you not post at this level more often on this thread instead of that bawbaggery you've been choosing to post most of the time. True, but you have drawn an arbitary line there. If we go back , say, to the first release of any GERS figures then you can see that there has been no scope to have an oil fund as any money saved one fiscal year will have been spent the next as revenues from oil fluctuate. If we had decided to go for high taxation like Norway or decided to slash state spending then yeah, we could have our oil fund. I'll post in a manner I'm posted to. Generally Even without showing Scotlands "true" economic picture the financial debate isn't close,we are subsidising rUK showing a true picture would only have given no more areas to argue about and tie the debate up in knots. The next set of GERS figures will show we are being subsidised. I gave you a list going back to the implementation of the parliament and the first release of GERS figures which shows that Scotland was subsidised MORE than it flowed the other way. This was entirely down to fluctuations in oil revenues as you should be aware. Scotland got a good deal in times when it would have been snookered without the ability of the union to let money flow BACK to us when required. You obviously poo pooed the figures I gave to you, but I used the GERS figures and I also used the HMRC ones. We can go back MUCH further with those, even to the discovery of oil itself if you like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reynard Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 Even without showing Scotlands "true" economic picture the financial debate isn't close,we are subsidising rUK showing a true picture would only have given no more areas to argue about and tie the debate up in knots. No we aren't. And the next GERS figures will show Scotland was subsidised. The oil revenue dropped nearly six billion from the previous year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
banterman86 Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 Because a lot of the tax revenues are unclear, if YES claimed this that and the next thing the debate would be even poorer than it has been so far. It's better to put the things like whisky out separately IMHO. We're not talking about Yes doing it, we're talking about the White Paper written by civil servants with full access to HMRC accounts. The claim is fairly simple - if you add up everything Scotland runs a surplus - why didn't the White Paper claim this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayrmad Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 True, but you have drawn an arbitary line there. If we go back , say, to the first release of any GERS figures then you can see that there has been no scope to have an oil fund as any money saved one fiscal year will have been spent the next as revenues from oil fluctuate. If we had decided to go for high taxation like Norway or decided to slash state spending then yeah, we could have our oil fund. I'll post in a manner I'm posted to. Generally Since 1999/00 we could have put over $4billion away, no great shakes but £4billion is £4billion. The next set of GERS figures will show we are being subsidised. Even if true, 1 year in isolation means nothing as you always like to tell us, you can't have it both ways, we're either looking at it since oil or devolution, any other timeframe isn't worthwhile. I gave you a list going back to the implementation of the parliament and the first release of GERS figures which shows that Scotland was subsidised MORE than it flowed the other way. This was entirely down to fluctuations in oil revenues as you should be aware. Scotland got a good deal in times when it would have been snookered without the ability of the union to let money flow BACK to us when required. £8billion over such a long period is hardly going to hammer us, about 1% of GDP wouldn't be anything to worry about. You obviously poo pooed the figures I gave to you, but I used the GERS figures and I also used the HMRC ones. We can go back MUCH further with those, even to the discovery of oil itself if you like. That wee zipped folder goes back to 1980/81 and shows we have subsidised rUK over that time period. If you want to pick up on any errors in that folder fell free but I'm not veering away from those figures unless someone proves them wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayrmad Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 No we aren't. And the next GERS figures will show Scotland was subsidised. The oil revenue dropped nearly six billion from the previous year. Is the figure more than £12 billion from the last 4 years? Is it more than the £32 billion since oil? The drop in oil revenues is a very good reason for independence, we can set the levels of taxation that suit the oil industry better to invest in exploration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayrmad Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 We're not talking about Yes doing it, we're talking about the White Paper written by civil servants with full access to HMRC accounts. The claim is fairly simple - if you add up everything Scotland runs a surplus - why didn't the White Paper claim this? Having full access to HMRC accounts won't have certain receipts made in Scotland claimed for Scotland. Your point about the surplus is nothing more than a wee smokescreen as the party you support nearly fcuking skint the whole of the UK with their financial incompetence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
banterman86 Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 Is the figure more than £12 billion from the last 4 years? Is it more than the £32 billion since oil? The drop in oil revenues is a very good reason for independence, we can set the levels of taxation that suit the oil industry better to invest in exploration. Why wouldn't the UK set levels of taxation to better invest now rather than see a huge revenue stream not perform to it;s maximum capacity? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
banterman86 Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 Having full access to HMRC accounts won't have certain receipts made in Scotland claimed for Scotland. Are you saying it'd be impossible to prove the surplus argument? That no one could do it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayrmad Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 Why wouldn't the UK set levels of taxation to better invest now rather than see a huge revenue stream not perform to it;s maximum capacity? You tell me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayrmad Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 Are you saying it'd be impossible to prove the surplus argument? That no one could do it? No, I'm saying it would further muddy the waters, the only weapon NO has. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HardyBamboo Posted January 22, 2014 Author Share Posted January 22, 2014 No we aren't. And the next GERS figures will show Scotland was subsidised. The oil revenue dropped nearly six billion from the previous year. The oil is still in the ground & therefore, if the price goes up, it will be worth more in the years to come! It may be the case that the WG altered the tax regime so that they could continue to paint a picture of "Subsidised Scotland" facilitating a No vote & therefore gaining access to c90% of future revenues rather than just c10%, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
banterman86 Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 No, I'm saying it would further muddy the waters, the only weapon NO has. The waters are muddied just now. By presenting the culmulative total of all revenue generated in scotland the waters could be cleared up, why didn't the White Paper do it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayrmad Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 The oil is still in the ground & therefore, if the price goes up, it will be worth more in the years to come! It may be the case that the WG altered the tax regime so that they could continue to paint a picture of "Subsidised Scotland" facilitating a No vote & therefore gaining access to c90% of future revenues rather than just c10%, They couldn't possibly as underhand as to make people suffer more to win the independence debate, could they? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayrmad Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 The waters are muddied just now. By presenting the culmulative total of all revenue generated in scotland the waters could be cleared up, why didn't the White Paper do it? I think you're choosing to miss the point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
banterman86 Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 The oil is still in the ground & therefore, if the price goes up, it will be worth more in the years to come! It may be the case that the WG altered the tax regime so that they could continue to paint a picture of "Subsidised Scotland" facilitating a No vote & therefore gaining access to c90% of future revenues rather than just c10%, When do you suppose westminster introduced these changes to tax on the Oil industry? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
banterman86 Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 I think you're choosing to miss the point. In what way is choosing not to clearly spell out Scotland's surplus in the Yes campaign's favour? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.