Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
UK Politics Thread UK Politics Thread

03-16-2017 , 04:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Husker
The reason I've focused on the £9bn subsidy is it's straightforward, it's there in black and white in the Scottish governments own figures and can't be disputed. It's the easiest starting point and in itself is massive.

With regards to the fiscal subsidy changing, you're right it could change but the signs are it's going to grow. The main, but not only, reason for he £9bn figure is the collapse in oil prices. Now there may be a recovery in that area but in terms of the tax take it won't recover to anywhere near what it was, oil is a declining resource, as you can see from the graph below (despite the small bounce at the end)


The large oil companies are moving out and it tends to be smaller companies looking to squeeze out any further possible profit in what is the costliest area on Earth to extract this resource. Oil is actually currently costing us money due to tax breaks for the oil companies. The other thing to add to this that people may not realise is that oil is about to become a burden due to decommisioning and that much of this will be paid by the government through tax reflief. Here's a couple of reports giving figures that start at £24bn of costs

https://www.ft.com/content/9b1d17d0-...b-680c49b4b4c0

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...iness-38048562

So we know that the gap won't be closed by some recovery in oil and massive boost in production. So why do I think the deficit subsidy will increase? Well Scotland (and Wales and NI) receives funding based on public spending in England. As it stands the UK economy as a whole is growing 3 times as fast as Scotland's so the gap in revenue will be widening at a time when public expenditure is increasing. This is why next year Scotland's spending will go up by so much (just over £1bn), it's due to the UK economy doing surprisingly well.

https://www.ft.com/content/022aeeb2-...c-be108f1c1dce


As for the impact on income and revenues I'd mainly covered that in my previous post. The country would have to go through a severe austerity program that we haven't seen in our lifetime and we have very recent examples of the impact austerity (on a far smaller scale) has. Jobs are lost, wages are depressed, businesses close down etc.

Finally, with regards to the potential to increase revenues post independence, what exactly would these be that are outwith the powers of the Scottish government at the current time? They have tax raising and tax setting powers (but fail to use most of them after screaming for them). No doubt the SNP Growth Commision will soon report findings that will make vague claims about how they will grow the economy further but if that was possible they would be doing it now.

I'll quickly mention one other thing, the currency question. If the SNP say they'll adopt the Euro they'll probably lose the referendum. If they choose to stick with the pound or create a new currency then the reserves required will be massive. Here's a talk by economist Ronald MacDonald (really ). His credentials are as follows: Professor MacDonald is Research Professor in Macroeconomics and International Finance at the Adam Smith Business School; he has acted as an advisor on currency and exchange rate issues to the European Commission, IMF, World Bank, European Central Bank and a number of other central banks. He was previously Bonar Macfie Chair of Economics and Adam Smith Chair of Political Economy at the University of Glasgow and Professor of International Finance at the University of Strathclyde.



The numbers he gives are very scary indeed and he also talks about other things that would happen such as a flight of capital etc. Note that this speech is from 2014, before the collapse in oil prices and even he underestimates the deficit by suggesting it could be between 5-7% (it's almost 10%). Anyway, check it out from 7:00 onwards

I'm not 100% sure I've fully answered your question as it was a little broad but if there's any specifics you think I've missed let me know.
No that's pretty detailed, certainly promoted me to read up some more.
Link doesn't work but judging by his credentials I'm likely not going to be convinced that this man has the people's interests at heart... it does sound a little like project fear. But as I said, in the absence of any statistical information to provide a counter to this, I'll leave it there.
03-17-2017 , 04:52 AM
May has been told that there will be no hard border and there will be no direct rule if the parties cannot sort it out themselves. Will be a joint thing with Ireland.

Union on its last legs.
03-17-2017 , 06:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Husker
His credentials are as follows: [I]Professor MacDonald is Research Professor in Macroeconomics and International Finance at the Adam Smith Business School
No need to continue reading after that point.

Freemarker/neoliberal economics died in 2008 and I think we've heard more than enough from these people.
03-17-2017 , 06:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by GBV
No need to continue reading after that point.

Freemarker/neoliberal economics died in 2008 and I think we've heard more than enough from these people.
Your suggestion for someone to discuss the implications of a new currency is?

Btw, the person who gave him such a good introduction in the video was George Galloway. Not sure how your mind will manage to cope with that one.
03-18-2017 , 04:59 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Husker
Your suggestion for someone to discuss the implications of a new currency is?

Btw, the person who gave him such a good introduction in the video was George Galloway. Not sure how your mind will manage to cope with that one.
As I've said before I have very mixed feelings about Galloway.
03-18-2017 , 07:17 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by GBV
As I've said before I have very mixed feelings about Galloway.
To be fair, you have.
03-18-2017 , 08:53 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Husker
Your suggestion for someone to discuss the implications of a new currency is?

Btw, the person who gave him such a good introduction in the video was George Galloway. Not sure how your mind will manage to cope with that one.
Still can't see link but I'm guessing that will be because Galloway backed No in 2014. Rightly or wrongly, he will bend to make whatever allegiances he sees fit to win the issue of the day, eg. Farage, Sadaam etc, with all the contradictions that entails.
03-19-2017 , 02:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomj
Still can't see link but I'm guessing that will be because Galloway backed No in 2014. Rightly or wrongly, he will bend to make whatever allegiances he sees fit to win the issue of the day, eg. Farage, Sadaam etc, with all the contradictions that entails.
Yeah that's my problem with Galloway. He'd literally make a dead with the devil for short-term political advantage.
03-20-2017 , 07:09 AM
Interesting BBC news headline: 'plot' to destroy Labour. Not biased though
03-20-2017 , 09:07 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomj
Interesting BBC news headline: 'plot' to destroy Labour. Not biased though
The headline I'm looking at says "Watson warns of Momentum-Unite 'plot'". What's the problem?
03-20-2017 , 09:19 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jalfrezi
The headline I'm looking at says "Watson warns of Momentum-Unite 'plot'". What's the problem?
You can't "plot" in favour of the status quo and democracy. It implies a lack of legitimacy.

Momentum have very high levels of popular support within Labour and a democratically elected leader.

Plot literally means do something illegal and/or harmful in secret. It is questionable how secret this actually is, it is what I would expect Momentum to be doing. Like all political organizations they want to advance their own interests. It certainly is not illegal and it is only harmful to the right of the party.

"Plotting" would be more accurately used to describe the anti-Corbyn faction.
03-20-2017 , 10:10 AM
I hope it works out and we see Labour put out of its electoral pain.

Currently Labour is like watching an elephant with advanced cancer totter around its pen. You just feel bad for it, and want its misery to end.
03-20-2017 , 11:18 AM
If a prominent member of the Labour party uses the word plot, that is what the medja are going to run with and its the same rule for every party.

BBC story even has has plot in quotation marks.

Tom Watson attacks Momentum-Unite Labour 'plot'

Calling this bias is absurd.

Last edited by O.A.F.K.1.1; 03-20-2017 at 11:26 AM.
03-20-2017 , 12:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomj
Someone said something I don't agree with and the BBC reported on it. The BBC is therefore biased.
fyp.
03-20-2017 , 12:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by O.A.F.K.1.1
If a prominent member of the Labour party uses the word plot, that is what the medja are going to run with and its the same rule for every party.

BBC story even has has plot in quotation marks.

Tom Watson attacks Momentum-Unite Labour 'plot'

Calling this bias is absurd.
So, Teresa May "plots" to leave the EU if Ken Clarke describes it that way.

You are being ridiculous.
03-20-2017 , 12:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by diebitter
I hope it works out and we see Labour put out of its electoral pain.

Currently Labour is like watching an elephant with advanced cancer totter around its pen. You just feel bad for it, and want its misery to end.
Maybe you could use the analogy of watching someone in crippling pain die because the government confiscated their disability benefit.
03-20-2017 , 12:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by GBV
Maybe you could use the analogy of watching someone in crippling pain die because the government confiscated their disability benefit.
Even though they'd still have access to the NHS? Or am I missing something in this analogy?
03-20-2017 , 12:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by GBV
So, Teresa May "plots" to leave the EU if Ken Clarke describes it that way.

You are being ridiculous.
If a member of the Tory party gave a press conference saying X faction is plotting to take over the Tory party it would be reported as:

Tory Boy says their is a "plot" to take over the tory party. Note the quotation marks.

I am not even close to being ridiculous, I am explaining a simple non controversial reality.
03-20-2017 , 02:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Husker
Even though they'd still have access to the NHS? Or am I missing something in this analogy?
Let them eat cake....
03-20-2017 , 02:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by O.A.F.K.1.1
If a member of the Tory party gave a press conference saying X faction is plotting to take over the Tory party it would be reported as:

Tory Boy says their is a "plot" to take over the tory party. Note the quotation marks.

I am not even close to being ridiculous, I am explaining a simple non controversial reality.
Momentum is not "plotting" to take over the Labour party. It is in control of the Labour party.
03-20-2017 , 02:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by GBV
Momentum is not "plotting" to take over the Labour party. It is in control of the Labour party.
So?

It's completely irrelevant to the discussion.

You seem unable to think straight on even those most straightforward issues if it relates in some way to Corbyn.
03-20-2017 , 02:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by O.A.F.K.1.1
So?

It's completely irrelevant to the discussion.

You seem unable to think straight on even those most straightforward issues if it relates in some way to Corbyn.
It is a very simple point. Momentum cannot "plot" to take over a party it already controls.
03-20-2017 , 02:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by GBV
It is a very simple point. Momentum cannot "plot" to take over a party it already controls.
So?

Let me break me it down.

There is a plot by momentum to overtake the labour party = bias.

Someone said there is a [QUOTATION MARKS] Plot [/QUOTATION MARKS] by momentum to overtake the labor party. = standard way media reports people saying things in this context. Might not be the most accurate but it is done the same way for each party = not biased.
03-20-2017 , 04:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jalfrezi
The headline I'm looking at says "Watson warns of Momentum-Unite 'plot'". What's the problem?
This is more balanced obviously as at least it references that it is Watson's view. While the content is typically shallow as usual, I wouldn't have bothered to complain since this isn't out of the ordinary (this title is still on the loaded side though - 'Watson warns...').

However, when I was watching earlier, the banner across the screen said, word for word, "'plot' to destroy Labour" which was permanently on screen for at least 20 minutes, probably longer. Which has so many instantly negative connotations and is obviously false on a number of levels.
Perhaps the editors got into trouble (again) and had to change tack. I mean with people like Laura Kuenssberg at the BBC I'm surprised this is even up for debate.

As for the issue in question, this was a pretty poor stunt. All Watson has achieved is to smear the name of both Unite and the Labour party through bad publicity and further division with Labour.
03-20-2017 , 04:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by O.A.F.K.1.1
So?

Let me break me it down.

There is a plot by momentum to overtake the labour party = bias.

Someone said there is a [QUOTATION MARKS] Plot [/QUOTATION MARKS] by momentum to overtake the labor party. = standard way media reports people saying things in this context. Might not be the most accurate but it is done the same way for each party = not biased.
Let's be clear - Watson said 'take over', which is fine for the media to report.
The BBC said 'destroy'. At what point did taking something over equate to destroying it.

      
m