The Scottish Politics thread

[Koniec]

So true. The sad thing is, none of them really need one. Positions for the most part are entrenched and won't shift significantly and they all are happy to ride on that and just find any muppet that knows how to posture to the audiences.

The Lib-dems are the most unfortunate of it all. Their leaders are no worse than any of the others. Their policies are often better than both Labour's and sometimes the SNP's, or at least comparable. But because their mothership party has no strength in England, they can't appeal to l the unionist nor the independence lot, and nobody seems to care about actual policies, so they are pretty much a non-entity. If ever there was a time and a party to consider breaking with their UK counter-part!

Saw Douglas Ross proclaiming he delivered on the Tories election promise to stand up to Humsa and now he's gone. Wow, is that what he has distilled UK's biggest party to? Similarly, all Labour have to boast about these days is they are slightly bigger than the Tories, as a (for now) unionist party.

We are poorer for the loss of Charles Kennedy.

Doug Ross has successfully United scottish football fans in the collective abuse of him. 4 stands singing in unison about him being an onanist is quite entertaining.

 

[Saddleworth2]

No not really. Not whichever way you spin it. Only when you spin it the one way. That of a closet nationalist, mostly. When you spin it the other way, it is then actually 'us' paying for 'your' tampons. Eventhough you then unfortunately still have to pay for them yourself.

Neither are entirely true of course, hence the fine line balance of it all. Either way, unlike you, I have no issue with it and don't constantly advocate changing it.

Because I accept the concept of the union. If that were ever to change I have no idea how it will all divvy up, but I doubt it will be as simple as 'you' keep all the revenue and 'we' keep all the debt, which seems to be the only way you know how to spin it.

Incidentally you might think you conceal your jibes better and they are more subtle, but that's not really the case. I actually agree with so much of what you generally say though, and I maybe only tend to respond to that type of comment, which might get tedious. But then, you do keep making it. You have a good day as well pal.

I don’t want to prolong the agony as it really winds me up that it’s used as a stick to beat us with. The Barnett formulae is a construct of the Treasury and the Union. Even its creator thinks it is a flawed construct and whichever side of the fence you sit it can be used to bash the other side.
Our expenditure per head is larger than most English regions for relevant and some historic reasons. What we choose to spend the block grant on is dictated by the policies that the Scottish electorate vote into government within the framework of devolution.

Here are the latest figures:

http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN04033/assets/aed61d15-3e1a-466c-9dde-bc7126ace05a.png

If it is so disadvantageous to England you would have thought the Tory government would have junked it and put us secondary nations on our own version of PIP where we have to prove our worth and sing for our supper every year.

It would become largely irrelevant in any independence negotiation.

 

[Saddleworth2]

Is he really though (that weak)?

Maybe a bit of nice and bland plain old vanilla is exactly what is needed at this point, a bit of a palette cleanser to calm things down.

All the other candidates have way too much to pull at and unravel, and there is generally too much tension. He is an experienced head and a safe pair of hands imo.

And is totally dedicated, he would do whatever is asked of him, he would be whatever they need him to be, the scapegoat, the seat warmer, the interim man, the wall to throw mud at. He is pretty much the Pellegrini of politics.

Yeah he won't reinvent the party he won't make huge strides towards their main cause, he might not fix the issues of the country generally, but then none of those is happening any time soon anyway, even (specially) with Labour taking more seats. Maybe a bit of time and stability is needed all round, for us the punters too.

Fuck it, bring on Swinney.

PS I vaguely seem to remember saying something roughly similar during the last round of candidate discussions.

You did. We are looking at it through different lenses. I am looking for someone who can move independence forward. You are looking for someone who will do a decent job as FM.
He might do that. My fear is that he would be torn apart by the left wing of the party. He wasn’t great last time he lead the party and has previously said he doesn’t want it. From a pragmatic perspective you might be proven right though.

 

[Brewster's millions]

I always hate this argument and avoid or dismiss it as long as I can. For that 10% you are so obsessed with, we contribute 25% more in overall revenue (from oil etc). So for every pound we get that you get 90p for, we send down £1.25. Where does it all go? Fuck knows, before brexit we were told the EU. Or to put it another way, for every 90p you get, you only pay 78p. Your 'we pay for your tampons' arguement is based on a one sided assumption. That all the oil and revenue is 'yours' but any or all of the spending and deficit is 'ours'. But it doesn't work like that. And it sure as fuck isn't unionistic. I can't believe you can't see the irony of passing judgement on nationalism, with a stance like that.

I’d love to know the data you are quoting there with regard to the North Sea tax revenue.

The revenue was understandably high in 22/23, at about £10bn which ironically just about covered the additional Scottish deficit versus the UK average, if of course you assume all this revenue should be attributed to Scotland. But prior to that it was extremely low and only averaged about 1-2bn a year in the prior ten years. So nowhere near enough to cover Scotland’s excessive deficit in comparison to the rest of the UK.

 

[Saddleworth2]

I’d love to know the data you are quoting there with regard to the North Sea tax revenue.

The revenue was understandably high in 22/23, at about £10bn which ironically just about covered the additional Scottish deficit versus the UK average, if of course you assume all this revenue should be attributed to Scotland. But prior to that it was extremely low and only averaged about 1-2bn a year in the prior ten years. So nowhere near enough to cover Scotland’s excessive deficit in comparison to the rest of the UK.

And before that?

 

[Brewster's millions]

And before that?

Unsurprisingly it moves around with the oil price, but the periods where offshore tax revenue would offset Scotland’s outsize deficit are brief.

I’m not sure what relevance the level of offshore tax receipts in the early 1980s is to the current debate. Scotland currently has a deficit of 15% of GDP when you exclude offshore tax receipts - a horrendous figure but the reality unfortunately - and outside of periods of exceptional oil prices (which aren’t wholly positive for the public finances) the UK funding is key.

 

[Saddleworth2]

Unsurprisingly it moves around with the oil price, but the periods where offshore tax revenue would offset Scotland’s outsize deficit are brief.

I’m not sure what relevance the level of offshore tax receipts in the early 1980s is to the current debate. Scotland currently has a deficit of 15% of GDP when you exclude offshore tax receipts - a horrendous figure but the reality unfortunately - and outside of periods of exceptional oil prices (which aren’t wholly positive for the public finances) the UK funding is key.

Of course a deficit of 15% is unsustainable but it contains a share of UK debt interest which would not necessarily be transferred £ for £ on independence - there is an agreement inmprinciple that some payment will be made to ensure smooth transition but thats all. There are also decisions to be made around the level of spending on defence (trident) and other opportunities to reduce the deficit from its current level.
That is without reviewing current spend/ taxation levels which might both need to be adjusted to get to sustainable levels. After that its down to Scotland to grow its revenues - either through immigration or productivity improvements or a combination of factors. Its not easy but who claims it would be? Its certainly not impossible though - a small thriving European nation with a wealth of natural resources. Better that than the constant death by a thousand cuts of a failing UK.

 

[blue b4 the moon]

Pity they did not get independency.

Crazy thing is, if we'd all had a vote they'd have been away with a landslide.

 

[Coatigan]

Crazy thing is, if we'd all had a vote they'd have been away with a landslide.

If I had a pound for every time I heard that, I'd pay the deficit off myself.

That much is obvious though, given you are all personally paying us to be in the union. You should be rooting for the SNP unfucking itself then.

 

[Coatigan]

Labour are still going for a vote of no confidence tomorrow. Tories say their job is done, in removing Yousaf. But they may yet back Labour (if they think they the motion will fail, probably).

Looks like the Greens won't back it.

Green MSP Gillian Mackay signalled the party would not vote for the motion, as she accused Sarwar of “political gameplaying”. She said: “Like the withdrawn Tory motion, the Labour one has clearly been overtaken by events. Pursuing it would achieve nothing, and would simply mean more parliamentary game-playing. Labour MSPs have spent the last few days saying the government needs to get back to running the country, so why do they want to waste the valuable time of the Scottish Parliament, staff and MSPs by carrying on with this charade when it has no chance of passing?” Mackay added: “We bear no personal animosity to the First Minister or the SNP, and, as Scottish Greens, are already getting back to business.”

Labour are like that school kid that tells others they can batter you, knowing fine well they'll never actually have to have the fight.