The Big Black Hole

[Ross.]

Metropolitan cities are just more important than everywhere else. They don't respect borders in a globalised world. That's just something you'll have to accept. There's a reason city-states do well.

 

I agree with you, and this is the main reason I think Scotland would be better off independent.

 

London would be nowhere near as prosperous as it is if rUK had not subsidised the redevelopment of the Docklands and the DLR or the M25 in the last 40 odd years, never mind some of the massive projects like the tube and the waterworks which were heavily subsidised by everyone else in the UK.

 

Then you have things like the recent olympics, the Cross Rail and the high speed trainline that will make half of England commuter towns to feed the city.

 

London was built off the back of rUK and continues to be. Many areas in rUK would be more prosperous if they hadn't built London, and no amount of peanuts being flicked back will change that.

[Ad Lib]

I agree with you, and this is the main reason I think Scotland would be better off independent.

 

London would be nowhere near as prosperous as it is if rUK had not subsidised the redevelopment of the Docklands and the DLR or the M25 in the last 40 odd years, never mind some of the massive projects like the tube and the waterworks which were heavily subsidised by everyone else in the UK.

 

Then you have things like the recent olympics, the Cross Rail and the high speed trainline that will make half of England commuter towns to feed the city.

 

London was built off the back of rUK and continues to be. Many areas in rUK would be more prosperous if they hadn't built London, and no amount of peanuts being flicked back will change that.

The operative difference is when London got subsidised it more than paid its way back. Scotland doesn't.

[Ross.]

The operative difference is when London got subsidised it more than paid its way back. Scotland doesn't.

 

Not entirely true. It's only in relatively recent times that Scotland has not been a net contributer to rUK.

 

Putting all our eggs in the London City basket has also led to substantial tax payer subsidies in recent years.

[Peppino Impastato]

The operative difference is when London got subsidised it more than paid its way back. Scotland doesn't.

Except for that 300 billion in oil though eh, I would say that leaves us slightly still in credit. Not like you to tell a barefaced lie to talk down Scotland.

[Ad Lib]

Not entirely true. It's only in relatively recent times that Scotland has not been a net contributer to rUK.

"Relatively recent times" being quite important in terms of proposed current and future actions.

Still, 13 years out of 16 since devolution receiving rather than delivering a fiscal transfer. That's a pretty emboldened trend. And not likely to be otherwise for probably at least a decade if not longer.

[Fide]

Ad Lib has now fully transformed into Scottish Labour.

 

What an utter clown.

[Ad Lib]

Except for that 300 billion in oil though eh, I would say that leaves us slightly still in credit. Not like you to tell a barefaced lie to talk down Scotland.

Except of course that about £116 billion of that has been taken into account in the GERS figures since the advent of devolution. In order for us to make a meaningful assessment of Scotland's position before 1999, we'd need fiscal balances that look at our performance over the course of the other £184 billion. Unless you are saying that Scotland got an equal or lower per capita share of spending from when oil was discovered in the 60s and 70s until 1999 when it suddenly bounced significantly, there is no obvious reason to believe that Scotland was denied the fruits of its labour.

Just to cancel out the fiscal transfer we have benefited from since 1999, Scotland would have had to have been running a relative fiscal surplus of an average of £360 per head per year from 1979 to 1999. Do you have any evidence to support this?

[Londonwell]

The honest answer is "not many of them". I think the Smith Commission and English Vetoes for English Laws were at least a tepid start at this but the long-term challenges still require a lot of work.

What has changed my mind is things that were not noticeably problems then that have become so now. The erosion of our political culture, the solidification of identity politics and party tribalism especially. I consider the SNP to be a malignant force in Scottish constitutional politics in a way I did not used to to anything like the same extent.

Their behaviour and attitude since 19th September 2014 has been antagonistic, uncompromising, and intellectually vapid. The dishonesty and lack of transparency behind their inability to admit they made a lot of mistakes in the referendum and in their case for independence suggests to me that they are not appropriate politicians to manage any transition towards an independent Scotland.

So if you want a tl;dr, my trust in the SNP as good faith actors has almost vanished and the intellectual credibility of their economic case is now very clearly shite.

You'll be unsurprised to learn that I disagree with almost every word. However I appreciate you giving me your honest opinion. I know that must have been hard for a Lib Dem....lolz

[Peppino Impastato]

Except of course that about £116 billion of that has been taken into account in the GERS figures since the advent of devolution. In order for us to make a meaningful assessment of Scotland's position before 1999, we'd need fiscal balances that look at our performance over the course of the other £184 billion. Unless you are saying that Scotland got an equal or lower per capita share of spending from when oil was discovered in the 60s and 70s until 1999 when it suddenly bounced significantly, there is no obvious reason to believe that Scotland was denied the fruits of its labour.Just to cancel out the fiscal transfer we have benefited from since 1999, Scotland would have had to have been running a relative fiscal surplus of an average of £360 per head per year from 1979 to 1999. Do you have any evidence to support this?

You know such figures don't exist but you also know the uk government believed we woul d have 'embarrassingly large tax surpluses' over that time period if independent so yes I would say that covers your 360 and more. You also know there are serious flaws with gers in the period ou reference but dismiss these now as they don't fit your narrative and you also know the 300 billion is simply the tax on the profits of oil companies the true value of oil is several times that.

But you dismiss all this as you are an intellectually dishonest troll.

[Ad Lib]

I've actually gone and looked at HMRC's own figures on this. Between 1968 and 1999, the Treasury intake for oil and gas revenues was about £87 billion, plus another £4 billion for the gas levy which applied from 1981 to 1998.

This very clearly falls well short of this purported £300 billion figure even when you add in revenues from devolution onwards. Where is the extra £100 billion?

It places annual revenues before devolution at about £3 billion a year since North Sea extraction began. Unless the difference between Scotland's public spending from 1968-1999 and its onshore revenues is less than £3 billion a year, it's not even a net contributor over that period. The difference would have to be about £2.5 billion a year or smaller to cancel-out the post-devolution fiscal transfers.

[Peppino Impastato]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/oilandgas/11844812/Britain-cant-afford-to-write-off-North-Sea-oil-after-40-years.html

you can't be very good at looking then, over 330 billion as of last year, plus a billion itaabout all the other ways it generates money for Westminster. Read it and weep. Are you going to apologise for saying Scotland hasn't paid its way now you've been proven wrong?

[Ad Lib]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/oilandgas/11844812/Britain-cant-afford-to-write-off-North-Sea-oil-after-40-years.html you can't be very good at looking then, over 330 billion as of last year, plus a billion itaabout all the other ways it generates money for Westminster. Read it and weep. Are you going to apologise for saying Scotland hasn't paid its way now you've been proven wrong?

That figure is flatly contradicted here:

Statistics of Government revenues from UK oil and gas production, produced by HMRC, using ONS statistics, January 2016

In particular, page 7, Table 11.11

ETA: And of course these Treasury figures apply to the entirety of the continental shelf. It is estimated that about 85% of UK oil and gas revenues come from the Scottish part of that shelf (the so-called "geographical share") so actual revenues raised for Scotland will be slightly lower than those stated there.

[Peppino Impastato]

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/04/thatcher-and-north-sea-oil-%E2%80%93-failure-invest-britain%E2%80%99s-futuret's actually 98%, once again you lie, and the figure is backed here and by David Cameron himself who doesn't dispute it, only you do

[Ad Lib]

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/04/thatcher-and-north-sea-oil-–-failure-invest-britain’s-futuret's actually 98%, once again you lie, and the figure is backed here and by David Cameron himself who doesn't dispute it, only you do

1. No it's not 98%. The Scottish Government put the proportion of revenues attributable to the Scottish sector at 85%, and did so in their analytical bulletin back in June.

2. As is clear from that New Statesman article, the purported revenues you are talking about are inflation adjusted to 2011 prices. It does not reflect the actual revenue raised at the relevant points in time. If you inflation adjusted all the historic spending in Scotland and all the on-shore tax revenues in the UK and Scotland from 1979, this would present this £300 billion figure in a far more modest light.

[Father Ted]

Wow.. A serious financial crisis eh?

Worrying times..

Any idea when we can expect this to hit us so we can stock up on canned goods..?

When interest rates go up and they start mentioning derivatives on news, time to batten down the hatches.

Leading independent financial institutions are predicting this year.

[Father Ted]

The City of London would be much better off as an independent country and Wales would be much worse off as one. I'd have thought that was pretty obvious.

This is clearly nonsense, London has been bleeding the country dry for years. Although it would be beneficial for rest of country if it did go independent

[Glenn Medeiros]

And this is the Union's opportunity to shine.   So Scotland is now doing *Bad*, it's not pulling its weight,  drastic and urgent investment in Scotland is required.   

 

How much money is the UK gov pouring into Scotland ?   And please don't mention the embarrassing tokenistic offerings to the NE.   

 

 

The U.K. Government is pouring 9.3% of its money into Scotland despite Scotland only generating 8.2% of the taxes.

 

 

and it's been stuck at 9.3 for a while and we're still not ( based only on the only year that matters to you)   pulling our weight.   So how much additional capital should the UK pour into Scotland.   Perhaps (with the pooling a sharing) every single inward investment job should go to Scotland until our fiscal gap matches rUK?   That would be solid unionism. 

The City of London would be much better off as an independent country and Wales would be much worse off as one. I'd have thought that was pretty obvious.

The world doesn't revolve around 14/15 GERS.   Here's a heeds up 15/16 will almost certainly be worse for Scotland.   This is the time for the union to shine, and all you can do is publish shite line graphs. 

 

Wales would be fucked without persistent fiscal transfers because it has never made or done anything that hasn't been hopelessly dependent on mining finite resources out of the ground.

However, Cardiff has been utterly transformed by devolution. Lovely city.

So a little bit of independence = good.   Lot of independence =  bad. 

As Fide said your posting like you're are weeks away from joining Labour.   What a shambles.

 

[AUFC90]

I see the unionists are still trying to claim that the 3rd richest region in the UK can't go it alone. We somehow need to keep subdising London to have any chance of prosperity ?

The NE receives 200 quid per person on infrastructure and London receives 2 grand per person on infrastructure. The NE is a fucking shitehole. The union doesn't benefit anywhere north of the humber never mind Scotland and anyone trying to pretend otherwise is an abject fanny.

That wee specy virgin who thinks he knows better than everyone shpuld just f**k off to London the noo and take all his Britnat Liberal mates with him.

[vikingTON]

I think you'll find that he tried to do so and lost his deposit in the endeavour.

[lichtgilphead]

I see the unionists are still trying to claim that the 3rd richest region in the UK can't go it alone. We somehow need to keep subdising London to have any chance of prosperity ?

The NE receives 200 quid per person on infrastructure and London receives 2 grand per person on infrastructure. The NE is a fucking shitehole. The union doesn't benefit anywhere north of the humber never mind Scotland and anyone trying to pretend otherwise is an abject fanny.

That wee specy virgin who thinks he knows better than everyone shpuld just f**k off to London the noo and take all his Britnat Liberal mates with him.

 

"The small bespectacled person who firstly considers himself to be of superior intellect to most of the intellectually inferior posters on this forum and secondly hopes to save his sexual purity until his marriage is sanctified by his chosen church should choose to move to the capital city of our glorious nation with all his similarly enlightened friends."

 

Please use proper, respectful & non-vernacular speech to describe our own failed prospective MP. It's all he deserves.