SNP's Model for Independence 'Broken Beyond Repair'

[Ad Lib]

intromittas te in necessitudinem

Nemo dat quod non habet.

[Fide]

It's not. GERS clearly shows this to be the case in 12 of the last 15 years, including 4 out of the last 5 from 2009-2014. For 2013-14 the relative deficit including a geographical share of oil stood at over £800 for every living person in Scotland. Indeed the financial years 2012-13 and 2013-14 represent the largest relative deficits since devolution began.

I've agreed with some of your albeit rambling assertions in the past but you're fucking barking on this topic.

You've caught rabid Britnat fever. It's the only explanation.

[MarkoRaj]

I've agreed with some of your albeit rambling assertions in the past but you're fucking barking on this topic.

You've caught rabid Britnat fever. It's the only explanation.

He's just a fucking arsehole tbh

[renton]

I said a combination of them.

Besides, yes it does. Your *ENTIRE CONTENTION* here is that Scotland might be able to run a bigger deficit without adverse consequences if it were independent. It does *NOTHING* to challenge the claim that it would be running a bigger deficit than the UK is.

GERS doesn't deal with "current performance". It is a statement of the financial years completed, updated when new periodical data and adjustment becomes available. Indeed, one of the main criticisms of the Wee Blue Book was that it was using GERS figures for 2011-12 despite being published after the GERS 2012-13 figures had come out. Of course, the 2011-12 figures had Scotland running a relative surplus to the UK as a whole, while the 2012-13 figures had it running a deficit.

Don't be trivial. You know that's not the point. The point was that the SNP was relying on GERS to show that in terms of tax revenue and public spending, Scotland wasn't being subsidised under the status quo therefore it would be no worse off if it were independent, leaving aside the question of whether it is a good or a bad idea to run a bigger deficit. They were presenting that isolated set of figures as part of a general trend about the overall relationship between Scotland and the UK. This is despite the fact that it was an atypical year and that over the last 5 years, only once has their depiction held true.

You're deliberately ignoring the caveat that's central to the question.

We can, with considerable confidence, state that Scotland would need to raise taxes or cut spending if it were to seek to run a deficit on the same terms as the UK does just now. Unless there is substantial evidence to show that running a significantly higher deficit than that would not materially harm Scotland because of other factors of its economic performance, that is a near certainty.

You can say that such a deficit wouldn't be a problem. You can say that such a deficit would be easily managed by Scotland because its economy is, tax yield and higher spending aside, in better shape than the UK as a whole. But you can't deny that such a deficit would exist and that there would need to be some sort of response to it over and above that the UK has in response its one.

The *only* way you can challenge that is by showing that the notional yields for things like corporation tax, capital gains tax, inheritance tax, national insurance, income tax, VAT and the Crown Estate were *massively* at variance with the reality in the GERS figures. This is not something that has been shown.

Yes, but the problem statement is not: "We can, with considerable confidence, state that Scotland would need to raise taxes or cut spending if it were to seek to run a deficit on the same terms as the UK does just now."

The problem statement is: "How large a deficit, and how long can we run that deficit and maintain a given value of public finances"

GERS may give you a clue to the first statement, but even then is deeply problematic as it is based on trying to isolate integrated revenue flows by various means and is not terribly accurate, however, it gives not one clue as tothe answer to the second statement, which from the point of view of an independent Scotland, is the only thing that matters.

Now, the fact is, that much to the chargrin of the Cuthberts, a full book of Scotland's accounts do not exist, so no, as in your last paragraph, we can not show this - that does not mean that it should not be done, indeed the Common Weal has the "publishing of a regular dahsboard of contextualised national indicators" as one idea in it's last publication. Only by the establishment of such a set of books, in line with the UK pink book, can we understand all the government and non governmental revenue streams and begin to make an accurate assessment of how Scotland's economy would behave under a given set of conditions.

And if the SNP/Yes was stupid in trying to rely on GERS figures to make a case for Scotland's relative public deficit/surplus, then the Unionist side was equally so, given that it trys to bash the Yes side over the head with the same figures, it's an argument over a set of incomplete, partial accounts that don't give a true picture of Scottish economic perfomance - it's pointless. Still, it was interesting to read Derek Bateman, who went as far as to suggest that Yes should try and create a Scottish pink book in line with the Cuthbert's thoughts on the matter: Guess who vetoed that?

I read in vain for any concept of what an independent economy might look like. He relies for his damning verdict on the official numbers provided by Treasury sources, totally missing the point of independence – making choices that suit Scotland. That means finally seeing the actual accounts, not the ones that ascribe spending to Scotland that never comes here and loading Treasury assessments of our debits rather than actual figures. He allows for no movement on debt for example during years of negotiations, but simply assumes our economy will carry on with the same spending commitments we have now. What would be the point of independence if that were true? These are the words of a man who has no faith in the very idea he has been promoting for three decades.

Let me address a wider point. He writes: ‘Independence needs facts and planning. The leadership fear those facts will rip the party apart. The SNP is growing comfortable in its role as the Scotland party within a lop-sided UK, while pretending it is still fighting for independence to keep the party together.’

The weekend the SNP won the Scottish election 2011, I called Kevin Pringle in Salmond’s office from my car in Moidart. I told him that, with a referendum inescapable, there was an urgent need for an independent organization systematically disseminating information on Scotland, the EU, NATO and the UN. A think tank was required, separate from the party, whose research would inform the debate and become a trusted source. If nothing was done, anti-Scottish interests and those with an anglo-centric outlook would do the work instead and create a one-sided view. If the SNP leadership used their contacts, they could find backers for the project although it would remain independent. As Alex himself told me later, he, as key adviser, turned the idea down. Yet it would have established the ground for research and media-informing intelligence on all matters relating to independence – ahead of the Unionist mob and the IFS. Who was afraid of facts ‘ripping the party apart’ then?