Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Tuesday, 14th October 2008

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Sign In
Register

No guarantee from Tories on Scots funds



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 26 May 2008
A SENIOR Scottish Tory admitted yesterday there was "no guarantee" that a future Conservative government would maintain Scotland's funding settlement.
There has been increasing speculation that, if he becomes prime minister, David Cameron will review the Barnett Formula which allocates spending increases to Scotland.

Yesterday Andrew Fulton, the new chairman of the Scottish Conservatives, said it was impossible to predict what Scotland's funding would be under a Cameron government. Nicola Sturgeon, the deputy First Minister, said this showed the Tories' "damaging intentions" towards Scotland at a time when record amounts were flowing to the London Treasury from North Sea oil.



The full article contains 107 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 25 May 2008 10:34 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Conservative Party
 
1

An Beal Bacht,

26/05/2008 00:15:39
We know the tories - we've been there before. That's okay though - if the English are happy with them who will we , in an independent Scotland, be to complain?
2

Castaway,

26/05/2008 00:23:53
......... a time when record amounts were flowing to the London Treasury from North Sea oil.
Norway, has used its "accidental inheritance" to set up a Petroleum Fund worth $210bn at the end of 2005, equivalent to $45,000 for every person living in Norway.
The fund was valued at $387.3 billion in March 2008, Norway's central bank reported.15/04/2008
This latest figure equates to $82,000 for every person living in Norway.
3

Edward,

26/05/2008 01:25:52
Oil revenues should be going directly to Scotland
its a disgrace that they are not and that we are just fed the scraps under the so called barnett formula, for which were supposed to be greatful
Its also disgusting that Scotland actually raises more revenue excluding oil that it gets back
Scrap Barnett, let Scotland keep ALL revenues raised including those for oil and gas
Better still let Scotland be independent and wealthy
4

Scottish not British,

26/05/2008 02:53:00
Cameron's only policies are slag off labour becuase its what the people of England want and to destroy Scotland because its what the people of England want. I suspect this will be the rock he perishes on since any cut in funding will not go unnoticed(a bit rich given that it is our own money and they keep much of it)and it will ensure his legacy is the complete dissolution of the union.
I don't understand why they are being called "Scottish Tories" since it is apparent that to be a Tory is to wish to harm Scotland. If the English want the smarmy wee worm let them have him but why should we have to put up with him and his party, they've done enough damage here.
5

Guga II,

Rockall 26/05/2008 03:02:57
Go for it Cameron. When you are Prime Monster in Westminster, I hope you will try and damage Scotland as much as possible by stealing even more of our money to subsidise England. That might then convince all these deluded Unionists to see the light and add their support for Scottish independence.

6

KampungHighlander,

Jakarta 26/05/2008 03:22:21
The Tories are even more South East centric than the Labour Party.

So you can expect more of the same beggar the regions policies.

Barnett should be killed off. The people of Scotland should have all the Revenue (Including Oil and Gas)that is raised in Scotland including the percentage of the corporate taxes from companies whose head office is in England that are generated by their activities in Scotland given to the Government in Holyrood to manage.

The Next GERS should make interesting reading. Finally we will get the truth about how money is continuing to be siphoned off from Scotland to subsidise the English.

This should be the basis for establishing a fair settlement of the revenue. If the Tories won't accept that then it is time for Independence

Anything short of that as a minimum

7

Border Scot,

26/05/2008 07:58:49
#6 - And presumably you are all for the people of England having all the Revenue that is raised in England, including the percentage of the corporate taxes from companies whose head office is in Scotland, that are generated by their activities in England given to the Government in Westminster to manage.

Now, given that many Scottish companies - including those in the whisky and financial services industries - make the vast majority of their UK sales in England, where would that leave us post-independence?
8

Border Scot,

26/05/2008 08:00:03
#3 - Scotland does not raise more money, excluding oil, than it gets back.
9

Boy Wonder,

26/05/2008 08:51:50
Hooray for the Tories!!! :D

Once they get in down South ... and start meddling in Scots politics ... Independence will be even closer.

Live under Tory rule again?? Not if we can help it!
10

Boy Wonder,

26/05/2008 08:52:39
#8. BS ... why are FIVE English border towns applying to become Scottish town then???
11

,

26/05/2008 08:59:47
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
12

,

26/05/2008 09:00:20
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
13

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 26/05/2008 09:01:40
6

Why would the next GERS figures be any more honest than their previous ones??
14

Joe Macdelta.,

26/05/2008 10:07:15
That is just to prepare the electorate in Scotland for the status quo, if at the next General Election they and not Nu Labour get the prize, which just shows us what we need to do.
An Independent Scotland is the only way to go, we have to be responsible for ourselves, surely one government instead of two will be cheaper to run, and easier to control. The way things are at the present, its just more of the same, only the party name changes, the same broken promises
15

The Former Mr. Angry,

Perth 26/05/2008 10:15:42
Bit of confusion going in in Cameron's mind. One minute he wants to deal in a respectful way with the SNP, next minute he's promising a cut in funding, which would please his majority English electorate. Depends on your definition of "respect" I suppose, but he is in danger of alienating Scots as a result.

Although I am sure he will repair and run the economy better than Mr Big Brain, he has to get out of the London-centric mindset that has effectively put the SNP back in the frame from New Labour's efforts, north and south of the border if he wants to recover standing in Scotland. There is a definite feeling of "ripoff" about this latest edict.

16

Melly,

Sussex 26/05/2008 10:34:51
We wont be needing any funding settlements from the UK because the UK wont exist anymore. I suspect the English government will be on bended knee pleading for aid from its northern neighbour by then.
17

Alan B,

26/05/2008 10:59:24
#Border Scot

"Scotland does not raise more money, excluding oil, than it gets back."

But with oil we have subsidised the rest of the uk. We are currently enjoying a huge surplus.

We must be the only country that discovered oil and gave most of it away.

If we wish to generate more tax revenues outwith oil we need to sort out our cronic slow economic growth that the union has saddled us with.

The only reason for staying with the union, is to wait for oil to run out, and then hope england will subsidise us, because we will have squandered it and still have a crap economy.

Alternatively we can admit we were stupid to stay with the union and give away so much wealth. Admit we were taken in by the lies of labour in the 70s. And take control of our resources and make decision by scotland for scotland, in order to have an economy as good as all those other small western european nations that are doing so much better over a long period of time.
18

Alan B,

26/05/2008 11:02:57
I do not actually see a problem if cameron ends the barnett formula. In fact it could be good news. However it really depends what he replaces it with.

Also will calman get in first a propose something new. This really does put pressure on calman to suggest abolishing barnett and implementing something that is good for scotland.

The best way forward is fiscal autonomy.

If cameron was to suggest this he would get the support of the snp and hence the scottish government. As such it would be much easier sell.

19

Border Scot,

26/05/2008 11:04:28
#11 - That is not #6 was saying is it? He/she was saying that all the taxation derived from money made in Scotland should be raised in Scotland. I was merely askin if he/she believes the same should apply to money made by Scottish cmpanies in England. If so, Scotland will suffer a significant deficit.

As for ~12 - I draw you attention to te recent work done by the Herald which showed that if you include all oil and gas tax money, Scotland makes a neutral contribution to the UK Exchequer - in other words, we get back what we put in. Given the high price of oil, that may change this year, but - by the samr token - when the oil priuce was much lower than it is now, we must have been a net beneficiary. In any case, without the oil we would clearly be a significant net beneficiary.
20

HKLad,

26/05/2008 11:04:54
So an Independent Scotland would have a surplus and England?
http://tinyurl.com/4wwvto - currently the UK with oil has a 43Billion hole in its finances - imagine no oil.

I wonder how England would survive an independent Scotland. The biggest bank in England is HSBC(Hong Kong and Shanghai Bank), the second is Royal Bank of Scotland(RBS, Edinburgh), third is Halifax Bank of Scotland(HBOS, Edinburgh).
Whisky - 25% of UK's food-drink export.
Where do you start, if Norway, Denmark etc can do it so can Scotland - Jez!! It's a no brainer.
21

Border Scot,

26/05/2008 11:09:03
#17 - Scotland did not discover the oil, the UK did. But that's besides the point. The oil price has not always been as high as it is now. In fact, only last year it was half the price; while two or three years before that, it was significantly lower. Thans to price rises, Scotland is probably now a net contributor to the UK Exchequer - just like London and the South East. But unlike London and the South East, we have not ben a net contributor for long.My guess is that this is something that the English will be only too pleased to point out when we are negotiating the dissolution of the UK.
22

Border Scot,

26/05/2008 11:11:41
#20 - The UK/England would no longer have that deficit as it would have to be allocated to the successor states. How this would be done would, of course, be subject to negotiation.
23

Border Scot,

26/05/2008 11:13:21
#16 - what you wish for and what will happen will, I think you will find, be two completely different things
24

Border Scot,

26/05/2008 11:15:08
#15 - Where is there any mention of cuts in this article?
25

Alan B,

26/05/2008 11:32:45
#Border Scot

U really do come across as a union at any cost type of person.

If u cast ur mind back a while, a common written question from the snp to the tory treasury asking about scotland fiscal position showed that scotland had subsidised the rest of the uk to the tune of £27 billion over a period from (if i remember correctly) 79-95 (90s prices). That is a huge amount for the scottish economy to give away. (assumes scotland getting 90% oil share)

Like gving away a 1/3 of all scottish income tax every yr for that period (about 17yrs).

Or england giving the US £270 billion just as pressy cause they are so nice.

The latest figures based on accountant Grant Thorntons study shows scotland having a surplus over expenditure of 4.4 billion with an 85% oil share. And 6billion if scotland gets 95% oil which is i believe the snp position of the split.

26

Alan B,

26/05/2008 11:39:23
#Border Scot

"Where is there any mention of cuts in this article?"

I agree the article is bad as it implies there will be cuts but we do not know. That to a large extent is the problem. Cameron is not confident in his own policies to announce them. We are therefore left to guess what the fiscal changes would mean. Because of the history of scotlands view of the tories, we know they can impose anything on scotland without our concent.

The fact is u really have only a few options
1)fiscal autonomy. (that would be the cleanest and would allow the tories to impose a ban on scottish mps voting on english matters more easily).
2)fiscal federalism
3)some sort of fiscal responsibility.
4)direct payments from westminster to the sp with an updated formula.

It is difficult to see how 2,3 and 4 would not lead to cuts.
27

Alan B,

26/05/2008 11:47:35
#22 Border Scot

"The UK/England would no longer have that deficit as it would have to be allocated to the successor states. How this would be done would, of course, be subject to negotiation. "

that makes no sense

a deficit would not be allocated to successor states.

A deficit would come about from future spending for these successor states. These countries would have deficits if they spend more that they raise in taxes.

If scotland is currently in surplus it would remain so unless it spends more that it takes in or oil drops to a level that means the tax take would be less than spending.

The rest of the uk would continue with a deficit unless a future government bring spending and tax tax into line.

Maybe what u meant was national debt and not the deficit the poster was talking about.
28

,

26/05/2008 11:48:22
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
29

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 26/05/2008 11:49:42
Alan B

We have done this arguement to death on previous blogs dont give it any more airing it is just troll feed.
30

Alan B,

26/05/2008 11:54:40
#Foulkes Off the CyberNat

Hi, i just like re-iterating the £6billion surplus that scotland has. We have heard so many lies about scotland fiscal position from unionist it is important that everyone knows the truth.

The 27 billion that we subsidised them is also a useful statistic as it shows that it is not just the odd yr that we have in surplus be it over a number of yrs we have had an overall huge surplus.
31

Border Scot,

26/05/2008 11:58:44
#28 - In other words, you still cannot come up with answers to the issues that I raise.

#30 - Just provide some links that demonstrate we have been subsidising the rest of the UK fr the four decades and I will clearly not have an argument. So where are they?
32

Border Scot,

26/05/2008 12:01:44
#27 - It makes absoute sense. The successor countries to the he UK would inherit the current UK debt on terms they negotiate among themselves. Among the things that will be discussed in such negotiations is how the debt was accumulated. Scotland will then take on its share of the debt and will have to manage it.

33

,

26/05/2008 12:19:40
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
34

,

26/05/2008 12:21:14
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
35

,

26/05/2008 12:26:00
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
36

Border Scot,

26/05/2008 12:26:52
#33 - In other wors: "I can't argue with you, so f**k off." Very persuasive.

#34 - Ireland's independence agreement with the UK led to a civil war there. Crucially, Ireland's departure from the UK left the UK intact. Scotland's secession would mean the end of the UK. Therefore, the debts and responsibilities of the UK would have to be apportioned to the successor states based on an agreement reched by those successor states and recognised by the international community.

It's really not that complicated.
37

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 26/05/2008 12:27:37
30

Yes Alan and its been shown time and time again but the trolls keep comming back with the same lines again and again.
38

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 26/05/2008 12:30:08
Alan

Its the troll calling itself AM2/HM/EV/Border Scot/ etc etc.
And its on another wind up I am done with it.
39

Alan B,

26/05/2008 12:31:22
#32 Border Scot

"The successor countries to the he UK would inherit the current UK debt on terms they negotiate among themselves"

That is what i said. U were replying to a poster who was talking about the deficit not debt. Suggest u re-read my post as u were confusing debt and deficit.
40

Border Scot,

26/05/2008 12:34:21
#35 - I am afraid that you will have to do better than citing a highly subjective study put together by supporters of the Scottish Nationalist Party. However, if all this informaiton is correct and uncontestable, then I am sure you can point me in the direction of some independent corroboration. Please feel free to do so.
41

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 26/05/2008 12:37:52
40

What again??? 20 times isnt enough??
42

Border Scot,

26/05/2008 12:42:12
#39 - Deficit is debt. It is the money the government has had to borrow in order to meet its spending requirements. If, on the day the UK breaks up, the deficit stands at £40 billion, Scotland will assume some of that debt.

What you are talking about is future deficits created on the back of future spending. The English will obviously get the majority of the UK's debt, though absolute percentages will have to be determined through negotiation. It is then, of course, down to future governments there to manage future spending. My guess is that a Tory-run English government will not spend as heavily as the Labour-led UK government we currently have and that, as a result, the English deficit will fall quite quickly. As lomg as the oil price remains high and as long as oil companies extract oil from the North Sea, Scotland should be OK too. Should, for any reason, the oil price fall, however, then we could be in trouble, especually as we will need all the oil money to finance existing expenditures (this is before you factor in the cuts in Corporation Tax the SNP is proposing). I guess this is why tax is much higher in oil rich Norway than it is in Scotland currently - they are not relying on oil money to finance their spending.
43

Border Scot,

26/05/2008 12:43:04
#41 - Surely you can find me some independent corroboration fo the nationalist study you cite, can't you?
44

Alan B,

26/05/2008 12:47:35
#31 Border Scot

"Just provide some links that demonstrate we have been subsidising the rest of the UK fr the four decades and I will clearly not have an argument. So where are they?"

U asked for links before and i posted them to u. Can we please not go through the same thing again. These are stats u can google for. I will post once again, but in future do not ask for links and i have already provided them to u.

Also i did not say 4 decades. The 27 billion was from 79 (i believe) to 95. So 17yr period.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199697/cmhansrd/vo970205/debtext/70205-22.htm

http://www.bbc.co.uk/politics97/forum/answers.shtml

(search for 27 billion - for the 2nd link look to the answer not the question). As it was a written question u should get the exact stuff from westmisnter link - someone said u should try Hansard for this type of stuff the last time u wanted this type of info).

(as it was based on 90% oil some said the oil fig would be lower, u can make up ur own mind what the oil spilt would be).

The other figure 4.4 billion surplus or 6 billion surplus depending on oil split is current position.

http://www.publicpolitics.net/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=109356

http://www.snp.org/node/13817

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/natural_resources/article3954031.ece
45

Alan B,

26/05/2008 12:51:08
#Border Scot

"Deficit is debt"

Stop digging. The poster mention deficit. ie current deficit. Debt is accumulated deficits over a period of time ie historic.

As such they are different.

Ur statement that scotland would take a share of deficit is factually untrue. We would however take our share of uk debt. As it should in the event of a break up.
46

Alan B,

26/05/2008 12:53:59

"I guess this is why tax is much higher in oil rich Norway than it is in Scotland currently - they are not relying on oil money to finance their spending. "

No it is primarily because they have a much higher cost social model. Althrough they have been moving to to reform this. Corporation tax is now not high ie 28%. That is the same rate as the uk since this budget. It was previously 30% here.
47

Conway,

26/05/2008 12:56:04
The Scots parliament should be responsible for all the taxes (buisness and personal) raised in Scotland .Holyrood would then pay a sum to the UK exchequer for defence .Then we could see how our money is being spent
48

,

26/05/2008 12:57:35
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
49

Alan B,

26/05/2008 12:57:46
#Border Scot

The big issue for scotland is not oil per se. It is our cronically slow growing economy. The best way to have higher tax revuenues is not actually higher taxes but higher economic growth.

The challenge for scotland is to transform its growth. If that can be done within the uk fair enough but evidence suggests over the last 30yrs it cannot.

The issue with oil is how can we have such a poor economic performance with such wealth. why have we no used this windfall to transform our economy and hence our country.
50

Border Scot,

26/05/2008 13:12:07
#45 - I do understand the difference. But the simple fact is that deficit is debt and Scotland will take our share of the UK deficit on the day of independence as we will be committted to a number of UK government expenditures already planned on, for instance, social security payments. However, as you imply the deficit is relatively small in comparison to the UK's debt - which we all agree Scotland will have to take its share of. Te more important issue is how governments manage future deficits and here I am pretty sure Tory spending in Engand will be ower than Labour spending in the UK, therefore an independent England will not have the deficit the original poster was claiming.

Moving on, Norway's personal direct and indirect taxation levels are considerably higher than Scotland's because they have chosen to put the oil money into a future fund rather than to use it to finance annual spending. In Scotland we will not have that luxury as we will need the oil money to finance what we currently spend - thus, we will be far more dependent on oil money than are the Norwegians.

Finally, I agree with you, at least in part in #49. I am not a Tory and the way they used the oil money in 1980s and 90s was a scandal. However, I think that many of Scotland's problems have been caused by the nature of Scottish industry which was traditionally based on mining and heavy industry. We have suffered as production in these areas has moved east and we are not alone - the North of England and Wales went through the same thing, as did many other parts of western Europe and the rust belt in the US.
51

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 26/05/2008 13:12:29
48

Whats up tired of posting as Border Scot already??
52

ochone,

Sauchie, Clack's 26/05/2008 13:20:46
Off the point a bit I know, but does Border Scot remind anybody else of a certain other well known poster in both style and lack of substance?
53

Guga II,

Rockall 26/05/2008 13:25:32
#48. You are obviously another of these foreigners living in Scotland.

Incidentally, I am not a member of any political party. That way I am free to criticise or commend, on merit, not because the monkey is wearing a red rosette.

54

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 26/05/2008 13:28:56
http://www.epi.org/books/swa2004/news/swafacts_international.pdf

Just some old stats that may be of interest to anybody wanting to compare the UK to Norway or Norway to Scotland.
55

Micropacer,

26/05/2008 14:02:30
Border Scot im not a Nationalist but I am A realist. There were two independent reports in recent times.

The Financial Times report on Scottish Indepedence said that at that Oil price Scotland was at the very least paying its way - at the current Oil price that would be a surplus.

The Oxford report claimed that NOT including the Oil revenue Scotland was paying its way in tax.

So in the current state we would not be financially worse off Financially seperate from the rest of the UK and most probably a lot richer.
56

Alan B,

26/05/2008 14:09:15
#Border Scot

It is not just the tories. Labour hid the McCrone report in the 70s and labour have done nothing to turn round our economic peformance in the last 10yrs. In order to remain in power labour have continued fueling the north south divide and as such the north of england aswell as scotland has continued to suffer.

"However, I think that many of Scotland's problems have been caused by the nature of Scottish industry which was traditionally based on mining and heavy industry."

3 things
1)oil could and should have allowed us to diversify in the 80s.
2)30yrs on we still do not look like having a fast growing economy. ireland had significantly less going for it than scotland 30yrs ago and is now one of the richest nations in the world per person.
3)why did we not diversify.

the problem for scotland is too much bad management of the economy. when we had recessions in the 80s we could not kick the governments out. in the early 90s when recessions hit the south they did.

the challenge for unionists if the union is to be maintained is to come up with a strategy by which scotland can be successful economically within the union.

One of the biggest problems for the scottish economy is sterling and the associated monetary policy (interest rates). Interest rates are raised to control inflation. for too long we in scotland have suffered high interest rates because of the inflationary pressures of the south due to its high growth rates. Governments have done nothing to address this. Personally i think the euro would be far better for the scottish economy, where interest rates have traditionally been lower and would be more inline with scottish economic needs.

We also do not have the fiscal tools that would allow us to niche the economy and to try to be more competitive in certain areas.



57

Alan B,

26/05/2008 14:12:32
#Border Scot

"Scotland will take our share of the UK deficit on the day of independence as we will be committted to a number of UK government expenditures already planned on, for instance, social security payments."

I the figure of 4.4/6 billion surplus is true by definition we will not have a deficit.

we will simply have to maintain expenditure at a level set by the government of scotland at that time. Whether we have a deficit will depend on income.
58

Border Scot,

26/05/2008 14:28:12
#65 - I would hate the case for Scottish independence to be based solely on the price of oil - we are talking about a finite resource and the price can go up and down - so that is a big worry for me. The fqact that we would need oil revenue to help us balance the books is a major issue to my mind.

I am not sure I agree with you about Labour entirely - though I do think they have wasted a huge opportunity. Their heartland is Scotland and the North of England and if you compare investment in both places over the last 10 years to the prevous 10 years you will see a a significant increase. We also have the minimum wage, tax credits etc, so it has not been a complete waste - though it could and should have been so much better.

I agree that the waste of oil money in the 80s and 90s was an absolute scandal, not just for Scotland but for the whole of the UK. So much could have been done with it, but wasn't. The problem is, however, that this money is not coming back now.
59

Alan B,

26/05/2008 14:49:51
#Border Scot,

What investment?

I am not talking about government spending. "minimum wage, tax credits" might be nice social policies but it has not helped our economic performance.

I am talking about our economic growth rate. What has brown done as chancellor to address that. As far as i can see nothing.


"agree that the waste of oil money in the 80s and 90s was an absolute scandal, not just for Scotland but for the whole of the UK. "

i disagree the tories did very well for the south of england and middle england. (again i am not talking about social policy but economic performance).


60

Alan B,

26/05/2008 14:54:39
#Border Scot

Do u honestly believe if we have another 10yrs of labour scotland will close the growth gap with other economies?

Labour have actually not done much for the uk economy. The uk international competitiveness has dropped. Labour have simply spent alot of money. The only really good economic policy they introduced was the independence of the bank of england.

61

Alan B,

26/05/2008 14:55:54
#Border Scot

What do u think of this. Wendies husband:

"WENDY ALEXANDER has been dealt an embarrassing blow in her first week as Scottish Labour leader after footage emerged of her husband making a case for independence.

Professor Brian Ashcroft, policy director of the pro-Union economic think-tank, the Fraser of Allander Institute, was filmed arguing that Scotland would be more prosperous as a separate country than having full tax-raising powers as part of the UK.

Addressing a private seminar in May, Ashcroft said an independent Scotland would join an “arc of prosperity”, comprising other affluent small European states.

One of his wife’s first actions as leader was to commit to a review of the devolution settlement with the option of giving the Scottish parliament the power to raise all of the £30 billion it spends every year.

Ashcroft told delegates at an Edinburgh seminar organised by Visit Scotland, that full fiscal autonomy was “an absurdity” found nowhere else in the world. “Against that option, full-blown independence might be better, because . . . you can do many more things,” he added. “If you’re being forced to balance your books, then I think the logic is ‘be independent’, don’t do it within the Union. So you heard it here first - the argument for independence.” "

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article2328078.ece
62

Alan B,

26/05/2008 15:02:44
#Border Scot

"The fact that we would need oil revenue to help us balance the books is a major issue to my mind. "

u need to ask why that is? the reason is slow economic growth.

The big question we need to ask is how we address that. What we are doing is simply not working.

Where u worry about what we do when oil runs out i worry the same way. What happens when oil runs out. England (cameron is already saying so) will cut scotland allocation of money.

Remember barnet was introduced at the time to convince scots not to walk away with the oil wealth. It was introduce by a labour government that hid their view of scotland economic position with the mcrone report.

63

,

26/05/2008 15:16:15
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
64

,

26/05/2008 15:19:29
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
65

Alan B,

26/05/2008 15:31:50
#Ciderman 542000

2 points
1)if u read the article it says he actually supports fiscal federalism. Wendy talked about support for fiscal federalism when she took over but has since rowed back after browns intervention. So it does look like Wendy is influenced by his economic position.
2)it is also interesting that certain economists view our economic chances positively with independence.

i do take ur point that about him being his puppet. but it is still interesting when debating scotland economy and it chances of improved performance come independence.

66

Alan B,

26/05/2008 15:33:02
sorry "i do take ur point that about him not being her puppet"

And yes it proves nothing.
67

Alan B,

26/05/2008 15:35:44
#Ciderman 542000
"Did your wife dictate your posts for you Alan?"

if she did i would not have all the typos.
68

,

26/05/2008 15:41:29
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
69

,

26/05/2008 15:44:09
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
70

Alan B,

26/05/2008 15:49:33
#Ciderman 542000
"How can Alec Salmond's spending plans be reconciled with balancing the books?"

The snp can only spend the cash they get from westminster. They are not allowed to borrow (apart from off balance sheet stuff like pfi) so they have not option to balance the books.

Most governments do not balance the books anyway as they run deficits. Although the uks have got bigger with brown recently. The EU criteria say government should work with deficit levels lower than 3% of gdp.

If u had an independent scotland the government at the time would have to raise taxes and issue bonds for debt like everyone else.





71

Alan B,

26/05/2008 15:54:15
#Ciderman 542000

Do not know ur position on stuff. But Wendy seems to want fiscal federalism. Ashcroft says the same thing.

U would have to balance the books with fiscal federalism aswell. As i understand it, fiscal federalism is where scotland would raise taxes to cover sp spending. While fiscal autonomy would be scotland would raise all taxes and contribute to shared uk services.


Cameron is talking about replacing barnett. With the uk there are only 4 options
1)rehashed barnett formula. (probably meaning cuts for scotland)
2)fiscal autonomy
3)fiscal federalism
4)some sort of fiscal responsibility. ie partial fiscal federalism.
72

ldopas,

Cheshire 26/05/2008 16:00:49
Goodness what a lot of hot air verbiage.

In the end the facts are that the South East of England (and I live in the North so dont accuse me of being biased), generate most of the UK economy.

But why dont you all just admit it. The reason you dont want Cameron and the Tories isnt for all the nutjob reasons you try to push to explain it. Its because Cameron is English and the Tories are english based, and for the first time in ages, we english might actually have people governing us who have our interests to heart. As opposed to the self service Scottish maria we have now, backed by the "Scottish Government" (sic).
73

Alan B,

26/05/2008 16:07:13
#ldopas

The reason so many do not want the tories is that they have not forgiven the tories for thatcherism and the perceived damage done to scotland during that time.
74

Alan B,

26/05/2008 16:10:43
#ldopas

"In the end the facts are that the South East of England (and I live in the North so dont accuse me of being biased), generate most of the UK economy."

The facts are over a prolonged period of time scotland has contributed more to the uk that it has got back. The barnet formula was designed to give scotland an apparent larger public spending per head while actually taking considerably more from scotland that she got back.
75

ldopas,

26/05/2008 17:04:01
Hi Alan B, thanks for the polite replies!

I understand why Scotland and parts of the rest of the UK, didnt like Thatcherism. In part I agree with them. But there are two facts here:

1) People forget the industrial bankrupt wasteland out country was in the 1970s. Thatcher, whilst she did damage, actually dragged our nations out of that. Its true there were casualties, but the governemtns of Major, Blair and Brown inherited a job done and however anyone tries to spin it, we are one of the worlds strongest economies. So the question is, are the poor better off in a bankcrupt economy, or under a strong economy, its obviously the latter.

2) Cameron isnt Thatcher. He was at university. Its unfair to paint people for the sins of a past they didnt contribute two. In exactly the same way it would be silly of me to accuse PM Milliband (oops jumped the gun there! ;-) ) of being like Callaghan!


76

,

26/05/2008 17:05:05
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
77

Alan B,

26/05/2008 17:49:55
#Ciderman 542000

"Alec Salmond has not said that he can do that."

He has whether he can deliver is a different matter.

78

Alan B,

26/05/2008 18:01:07
#ldopas

"Its unfair to paint people for the sins of a past they didnt contribute two"

It may be unfair but peole will look to see if they think the party has changed.

People will also look to the options available. Scotland for whatever reason has voted labour for a long time. The snp are seen as the alternative, not the tory party.

If u even look at this article. Cameron is hinting at scrapping the Barnett formula but not saying what he would replace it with. Is scotland funding going to be cut? Do turkeys vot for xmas?

It is not just cameron. It is the party at large. Did the scottish tories stand up for scotland? Are they credible?

Look at some of the issues round the scottish parliament.

We had a referendum in 79, the majority voted for an assembly but a 40% rule was imposed this meant that many believe it was undemocratic. (a 40% rule would mean on a 50% turnout u would need 80% of the vote).

The tories have always campaigned against the scottish parliament and refused to implement it when there was strong support for it.

In many way the problem for the tories were they kept ruling scotland with little democratic mandate. As such they were blamed for everything. If u make decision that people do not want without a mandate it is resented.

As such the problem for cameron is he is seen as leader of a party with only 1 seat in scotland.



79

Alan B,

26/05/2008 18:08:20
#ldopas

"we are one of the worlds strongest economies"

I think that is the point. The uk maybe but that is really the south of england.

Scotlands economic growth has averaged less that 2%. The tories did not transform the scottish economy so that u could now say we have a successful economy. U could say there was a lot of pain but we have not seen the transformation of economic performance of the south of england.

If u look at the fiscal side. A written question to the tory treasury in the mid 90s - the answer showed scotland has contributed 27billion more than she got back over a period from 79-95. As such this was the poor subsidising the richer. (based on 90% oil).


80

Alan B,

26/05/2008 18:22:12
#ldopas

Just read ur post again:

"The reason you dont want Cameron and the Tories isnt for all the nutjob reasons you try to push to explain it. Its because Cameron is English and the Tories are english based, and for the first time in ages, we english might actually have people governing us who have our interests to heart."

If that was the case why have the tories done so badly in the scottish parliament elections. They are scottish. Goldie is as good a tory leader as i have seen, yet they lost seats only last ur at the election for the scottish parliament.

I think the issue is alot more complicated that u state.

For instance in the 50s (before my time) the unionist party in scotland as it was then called actually won a majority of the votes (no party has won a majority even labour since, majority of seat but not majority of the votes ie greater that 50%). This was from what i heard to do with sectarianism. ie anti catholic feeling in scotland.

Abit like the fact that david trimble not that long ago took the tory whip in the house of lords (i believe). He is an orange man. Many in scotland do not support that associated anti catholic feelings and reject the orange lodge.
81

All Politicians are the same,

Scotland 26/05/2008 18:26:03
I do not understand the whole economic arguement, countries do not seperate because one bit feels it will be better off. it may or may not in my opinion. Scotland will vote for Independence if the populace want to exercise self determination, and national identity. That is the reason countries become Independent.
82

Alan B,

26/05/2008 18:34:46
#All Politicians are the same

Different people want independence or the union for different reasons. As such it is difficult to generalise.

One important part of the economic argument is: when the debate over independence heats up unionist parties try to portray independence as some sort of economic meltdown. It used to be said that if people vote with their hearts they vote for independence, but if they vote with there head/wallet they vote for the union.

The economic argument is therefore important. If people think they may be poorer or there will be higher unemployment with independence people will vote no even if there would like in an ideal world independence.

So i do think it matters.

It also depends what type of union. there are different models and if u are looking at it objectively u may support the union but not at any price.
83

All Politicians are the same,

Scotland 26/05/2008 18:47:47
#100

I was merely illustrating that there are no examples whereby a country went independent for mainly financial reasons. The SNp are I think trying too hard to push the "English are stealing our oil routine". instead of the lets prove we are good enough to make our own decisions.
84

Alan B,

26/05/2008 19:28:14
#All Politicians are the same

The snp have not really mentioned oil. (only recently was the first time for yrs).

But if u consider the last scottish election. Labour were taking about huge deficits for scotland. It was not the snp that were making this an issue. The snp were saying they wanted to govern for about 3yrs and then have a referendum.

The fact was labours deficit was based on not counting oil. So who was making oil an issue. I remember a newsnight program before the election and a reporter sent up from london queried salmond about a deficit. she has obviously not been told that the figures she had been fed did not include oil.

What was salmond meant to do. Off course he pointed out the error. She ended up, by telling how the real figures showed scotland was roughly in balance and our deficit would be less that the rest of the uk.

Why should the snp accept lies about our fiscal position by unionist parties trying to imagine oil does not exist.

I will give u another example. Andrew Neil on his political program has a taggart actor on who advocated independence. Andrew humilated him by quoting deficits that were based on no oil and passing that off as true, the actor was economicall illiterate. The labour and tory politician did not have the integrity to correct him.

That was a bbc program passing off lies about scotland fiscal position.

Even gers which are meant to show scotland position pass of figures with oil as they make the unionist case much better.

That oil is an issue is becuase of unionist parties and supporters in the media lying.

85

,

26/05/2008 19:28:14
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
86

Alan B,

26/05/2008 19:29:52
#All Politicians are the same

"instead of the lets prove we are good enough to make our own decisions."

i do not think many people really think scotland is incapable of making decisions for itself. the real arguments for independence depend on whether it would make scotland a better place.
87

Alan B,

26/05/2008 19:38:15
#Ciderman 542000

That is what i said:
"Cameron is hinting at scrapping the Barnett formula but not saying what he would replace it with"


"But, that will suit the SNP, they want the Scottish people to suffer financial hardship, so, that they can exploit that and hope to benefit electorally."

that really is silly. whether it suits scotland depends on what he proposes. and also ur view.

it would suit the snp if it proposes fiscal autonomy. in my view that would suit scotland too. it will hardly create hardship as the latest economic report from Grant Thorton has estimated a scottish fiscal surplus of 6 billion based on 95% oil and 4.4billion based on 82.5%.

I have already asked u what u would do but u have not been forthcoming.

Lets face it Barnett has lost creditbility. Wendy wants fiscal federalism. The lib dems some fiscal responsibility. And the snp fiscal autonomy. We do not know exactly what Cameron is proposing it is all hints at the moment.

It will help if calman comes up with a specific policy.

But again what would u do.

As i see it u have an opinion and support the party most close to that view.
88

Alan B,

26/05/2008 19:42:17
#Ciderman 542000

"Let Salmond tell us how much better we will be if independent: give us hard projections, not more if's or but's"

Ur statement suggest ur are economically illiterate. A projection by definition is all ifs and buts.

Noone can project how the uk will do in 20yrs time. We do not know.

With an economy, it is not an exact science and u have to base it on the probability of outcome.

Take the euro. How would the uk perform inside or out? Blair wanted it brown did not. My own view is scotland has suffered by not being in it. But no-one can say for sure. It is about probability of outcome.

89

Alan B,

26/05/2008 19:44:49
"Let Salmond tell us how much better we will be if independent: give us hard projections"

if scotland could perform aswell as other small western european nations who have averaged about 4% growth while we were averaging less than 2%. well u can work it out yourself the consequences.
90

,

26/05/2008 19:48:50
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
91

Alan B,

26/05/2008 19:49:22
#Ciderman 542000

For the record one of the things i do not like about Barnett, is having lived in london for a while, people there think scotland is subsidised by england. People there think that Barnett is about english generousity to scotland. However when u point out figures from the tory treasury like the £27 billion that scotland subsidised the rest of the uk from 79 tp 95. They are ignorant of it even though it was all over the scottish media at the time. Also because the media portray scotland as subsidy junkies like this they do not even believe figure when u tell them.
92

Alan B,

26/05/2008 19:52:35
#108 Ciderman 542000

there are no guarantees in this life. certainly not with the economy. But look at this way we have grown at less than 2% gpd over the last 30yrs. that is poor.

Do u think westminster will try to address it? It is not going to happen.

The advantage of being in control of the party in scotland is we can kick them out if they are crap. Look what happened in the 80s. Scotland could not vote out the tories when they had recessions in scotland.

England voted them out when the recessions hit the south of england in the early 90s.
93

Ala