Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36053938)

Apart from these ones?



For someone so vexed by age-old unionist tripe, you’re awfully fond of age-old separatist tripe.

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36053945)

tbf, they’ve had borrow the RAF’s tin and flyboys until 809 Naval Air Squadron is formed, which is due to be stood up in 2023...

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36053944)

Lacking a little perspective, perhaps. How many polls have shown a majority for the union, over how many years? What was the outcome the only time people were invited to make the choice for real, after months of detailed debate (as opposed to months of separatist politicians exploiting an international emergency as an opportunity for daily jingoistic rabble rousing)?

Given Sturgeon has had months to use a specific set of devolved powers to cast herself as Lady Protector of the nation I’m not especially surprised that we are where we are right now. But the fundamentals haven’t changed, and in fact they’ve got rather worse given the economic cost of the crisis. Unless you’re one of the proper swivel-eyed ones who thinks we really are discussing independence from the imperial power rather than the dissolution of a union, with all the asset and liability sharing that entails?

If there is a fresh referendum campaign in the next 5 years, the economic argument will be painful for the SNP to make, unless they think they can just brass it out like Salmond tried to do in 2014.

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36053942)

£10 billion deficit?

Perhaps they’ll do what the U.K. does - run up a National Debt, and run at a deficit until they sort out income to be greater than expenditure...

U.K. was (at the time of the 2019 Budget) expecting to run at a £29.3 billion deficit for 2020 (I’m sure that’s been revised upwards now), and having a National Debt of £1,840 billion.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36053923)

Yet you argue vociferously against the prospect. I think you should avoid following me round the forums to get embarrassed in thread after thread. Streaming, Coronavirus and now Scottish independence.

You don't know enough about the subject to meaningfully offer any input, instead you offer age old tried and tested unionist tripe. 45% of the population saw through it in 2014 and likely more when asked next time.

You make the false assumption that Scotland couldn't reform the tax system or dramatically cut expenditure. Things like Trident are immediate quick wins, and aircraft carriers with no aircraft.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36053967)

I argue against the prospect because separation would be impoverish the Scottish population, who are being sold a pup by England haters. If separation does happen, however, the remainder of the UK will gain financially from it.

Incidentally, the UK as a whole is paying for Trident, not just Scotland. Scotland would lose the income generated by those who work there and instead would have to pay unemployment benefits for those who could not get alternative employment or decided not to move back to England.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36053968)

Impoverish the Scottish population :D

A laughable assertion. Essentially the “too wee, too small, too stupid” narrative all over again. Please Old Boy come up and campaign for Scotland to stay. I can’t think of anything better for the cause of independence than English people pretending to not care but seething on the inside as the union crumbles.

I think given your failure to understand Government finances in the Coronavirus thread I’ll not worry too much about your analysis of Scotland’s finances at a macroeconomic level. You keep your household budget economics for keeping Mrs OB happy with poor value linear TV packages.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36054058)

So where is the economic argument, then? You can ridicule me all you like, but you have no answers.

Start with the ending of the British subsidy to Scotland. How the hell do you work out that this is not a problem if Scotland wants to stand on its own two feet?

More borrowing seems to be your answer to everything, in which case why doesn’t Scotland borrow more now and stop sponging off England?

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 36054063)

Link

The Scots produce GERS. If they disagreed with the methodology, what have they said that would increase revenues by 20%.:rolleyes:

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36054066)

They aren't allowed to disagree with the methodology. Indeed, their statisticians probably aren't given the huge amounts of data that HMRC have in respect of tax in the United Kingdom. Even then, as I've said, it's impossible to split out Scottish and English VAT.

There's no indication that interest rates charged would be huge, especially in the current climate of near-zero interest rates around the globe.

Ooh aggregate borrowing at 0.0015% of what the UK Government borrows. Imagine the possibilities!

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 36054075)

Where does this 0.0015% come from?:D
UK borrowing includes the several 11 figure annual sum to prop up Scotland.
High deficit = high "interest rates".
"Not going to pay it back" = "Not going to lend you it, in the first place."

Estimates on VAT can be made. Their actual VAT would have to be double the estimated amount, in order to bridge the gap.

Still would nowhere near account for an alleged missing extra 20% in revenue.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36054079)

You should join the jfman Economics 101 lectures I'm giving Old Boy in the Coronavirus thread. You may find them insightful.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36054099)

In fairness to Old Boy, he says he won't attend your Economics 101 lecture yet as it would be out of sequence. He wants to see the first 100 beforehand. :D

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36054100)

Indeed there’s a mass gap of economics knowledge around, I’m not sure what to do...