Sunday 11 May 2014

from http://myweemusings.wordpress.com/2014/04/04/facts-and-figures-explained/

Fantastic article ahead :

Today's article highlights the facts about Scotland's economy and expels the myths that as a nation we are 'too wee, too poor, and too stupid'. Nothing, absolutely nothing could be further from the truth. 
The facts are there to be read and they prove we are big enough, rich enough, and definitely intelligent enough to be Independent. But don't take my word for it, read the article...
“Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts” – Daniel Patrick Moynihan
So here are the facts about Scotland’s economy I have compiled which will hopefully help expel the myths of our own inadequacy.
MYTH 1)
“Scotland is too wee to be a viable independent country“
Scotland has a population of around 5.3 million, compared to rUK’s population of approximately 58 million. You don’t need to be a mathematical wizard to see we are smaller, however we are not too small. If you look at the top three wealthiest countries in the OECD (as detailed below) you’ll see that the argument that Scotland is “too wee” is ridiculous and also a blatant lie.
1) Luxembourg – population 523,000 – GDP per capita 86.3
2) Norway – population 5 million – GDP per capita 57.3
3) Switzerland – population 7 million – GDP per capita 48.7
MYTH 2)
“Scotland is too poor to be a successful independent country”
We have been told for decades that Scotland is the subsidy junkie of Britain, that the rest of the UK pays our way in the world. It’s not surprising that this myth has long gone unchallenged, after all we only make up 8.4% of the UK population; so it must be true that the rUK pays for Scotland, mustn’t it?
Well, no actually, that isn’t true at all.
Making up only 8.4% of the UK population, Scotland actually accumulates almost 10% of the overall tax revenue of the UK (£53.2 billion), which means that Scottish people contribute more tax per head than the rest of the UK. This isn’t just a one off either, Scotland has actually paid more tax per head than the rest of the UK every single year for the last 30 years.
“But you receive more spending per head compared to rUK and you have a deficit of £12 billion”
This line is always, rather smugly I might add, trotted out when it’s pointed out that Scotland raises more tax than rUK. Whilst it’s completely true that Scotland does receive more spending than rUK, it’s not really accurate to say Scotland *spends* more. It’s worth having a deeper look into that spending, who spent it and where it goes.
i) THE SPENDING
In 2012/13 Scotland’s total public spending bill was £65.2 billion, compared to UK’s spending (excluding Scotland) of £609.9 billion.
The spending of Scotland’s £65.2 billion is broken up into two categories:
Identifiable spending: is that which can be identified as being spent to benefit the residents of a particular country or region of the UK. For example, benefit spending can clearly be allocated to the country or region where the recipient lives. Identifiable spending accounts for 86% of total public expenditure on services.
Non-identifiable spending: is that spending which is incurred for the UK as a whole, rather than residents of a particular country or region. The largest categories of non-identifiable spending are defence and interest on government debt. Non-identifiable spending accounts for 14% of total public expenditure on services.
So, of that 86% total identifiable public expenditure on services, Scotland’s Government and Local Authorities had control of approximately £38.5 billion. With that money, the Scottish Government provided the people of Scotland with (among other things) a free publicly owned NHS, free higher education, free prescriptions, free public transport for pensioners, free personal care for the elderly, a publicly owned water board, and also a freeze on council tax. It also attributed to non-reserved matter spending on public order & safety, housing & local amenities, recreation culture & religion, public & common services, and environmental services.
£26.6 billion of Scotland’s total expenditure was spent by the UK Government on Scotland’s behalf, this includes £9.3 billion of “non-identifiable” spending. It’s worth noting that the “non-identifiable” spending isn’t the actual amount spent IN Scotland, but rather an estimate based on Scotland’s population share (8.4%) of the overall spending by Westminster which is deemed as “non-identifiable”. For instance, in 2007/8 Scotland spent an identifiable amount of £400 million on defense in Scotland, our population share of non-identifiable defense spending by the UK Government was £3.1 billion . However, in actual fact we only saw £1.9 billion of that amount spent on defense in Scotland on our behalf.
Scotland’s share of debt interest payments to the UK Government was £4.1 billion for 2012/13. This is our share of interest on a per capita basis. There are no official figures kept for how much of the debt was accrued by Scotland, so we pay a population share on the basis that everyone shoulders the debt burden equally across the United Kingdom. Our debt spend is classed as non-identifiable spending.
So we now know for a fact that the Scottish Government & Local Authorities spent £38.5 billion IN Scotland, and that the UK Government spent £17.3 billion IN Scotland. Unfortunately we cannot say with absolute certainty that every penny of the remaining £5.2 billion of non-identifiable expenditure (£9.3 billion minus £4.1 billion debt spend) was spent IN Scotland. However, what is absolutely certain is the fact that Scotland didn’t SPEND it – the UK Government did.
I think it’s worth mentioning here that of the money Scotland has control over, the current Scottish Government manages to stay within its allocated budget.
i) THE DEFICIT
The first thing we should note about the deficit (and this is true for revenues too), is that the figures for Scotland are quoted in three stages:
Excluding oil & gas
Including oil & gas on a per capita share
Including oil & gas on an illustrative geographical share.
Meanwhile the figures for the UK automatically include a 100% share of oil & gas.
Another thing which is worth mentioning is that the much quoted £12 billion deficit figure, is the Net Fiscal balance which includes capital investment of public spending on things like new schools being built, hospitals, new roads etc. The Current Budget Balance gives an entirely different deficit figure, a much lower £8.5 billion.
The current balance budget deficit for the UK is £91.9 billion, and £114.7 billion for their net fiscal balance deficit (again, these figures include a 100% share of North Sea revenues in their calculations – a wee bit misleading I feel)
As we can see, both Scotland and the UK are running at a deficit, they both spend more than they create – This isn’t a sole problem for Scotland.
Now, here’s where things get interesting! If you take those figures for Scotland and compare them to the UK figures on a percentage of GDP, here’s what we find.
A) Scotland’s current balance budget, including geographical share of North Sea – 5.9% of GDP
i) UK’s current balance budget, including 100% of North Sea – 5.8% of GDP
B) Scotland’s net-fiscal balance, including geographical share of North Sea – 8.3% of GDP
i) UK’s net fiscal balance, including 100% of North Sea – 7.3% of GDP
There isn’t a whole hell of a lot in it. This isn’t a one horse race with the UK bolting ahead whilst Nicola Sturgeon stands on the sidelines screeching “c’mon Scotland, move yer bleedin’ arse” like some Scottish Eliza Doolittle attending the indyref races. On the contrary, this is a photo-finish. It would be extremely interesting to see a comparison with UK figures including their illustrative geographical share of North Sea instead of a 100% share. I wonder why the UK Government chooses not to highlight these figures…
Anyhoo, moving on.
HOW WILL THESE FIGURES CHANGE IN AN INDEPENDENT SCOTLAND?
Here’s how our economy works at the moment: All monies raised in Scotland are immediately sent to the UK Treasury, they then give us our share of money allocated through the block grant, which is based on the Barnett Formula. The Barnett Formula sets out the rules in how money is divided between England, Scotland, Northern Ireland, and Wales; and is based on a population percentage of each nation. The Barnett formula is not written into law, it is a purely monetary administrative system and there have been constant calls for it to be re-devised or scrapped entirely since it’s introduction. It’s a subject which is often seen addressed within the House of Lords. Let’s be clear here, the money which Scotland receives is entirely dependent on the agreement of the UK government, who could at any time scrap the Barnett Formula if they so wished, or alter it so that Scotland would receive less money than we do at the moment in order to make things “fairer” across the United Kingdom.
In an independent Scotland, we would cut out the Treasury middle man. All monies raised in Scotland would be allocated and spent by Scotland, we would no longer have to rely on money being given to us through block grants or have to worry that our funding could be cut by a Westminster Parliament the people of Scotland largely didn’t vote for and are grossly outnumbered in the hundreds by way of representation.
The argument over Scotland’s expenditure and deficit being a reason to vote against independence largely relies on the assumption that an independent Scotland would continue the spending trend we do at present.
With independence comes the powers to change how our money is spent. We would no longer be sending our per capita share of money down to help refurbish Westminster, or to build a high speed railway which stops 100 miles away from Scotland’s border. We wouldn’t help subsidise the some 780 peers within the House of Lords (an undemocratic and unelected drain on tax payers expenses). We wouldn’t be planning to spend a share of £34 billion on renewing nuclear deterrents on the Clyde when 220,000 children in Scotland are living in poverty with a further 50,000 estimated to join that already horrific number by 2020.
We can choose to create a fairer tax system, we can choose to enable tens of thousands of people back into work by transforming child care policies, we can choose to properly tackle the poverty that has plagued Scotland’s streets for far too long. It all comes down to choice, Scotland’s choice.
The power to change what we are comes only with independence, and that is why I am voting yes for Scotland.

Friday 2 May 2014

Forbes from March

http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidnicholson/2014/03/05/5-reasons-why-scottish-independence-would-be-an-economic-disaster/

Currency – There is currently 4 currency options open to an independent Scotland. Sterling in a formal currency union (as it is now) Sterling – without Westminster cooperation (such as Panama), The Euro or an independent Scottish currency. With Nobel winning Economists stating Osborne’s statement as a bluff (after all what does he know of economics. His degree is in history. Alex Salmond’s is in economics). Mr Klaus is a former Czech president. Speaking at an event in Edinburgh University this week, Mr Klaus – referring to comments made by Jose Manuel Barroso in a BBC interview – said: “It is arrogant of the EU to say Scotland and Catalonia will not be members.” Mme Garriaud-Maylam, a senior French senator specialising in foreign policy. Speaking in the French Senate, Mme Garriaud-Maylam said: “The threats formulated by Mr Barroso are inappropriate and the result of Spanish and English pressure. London is increasingly worried. They (EU threats) are not credible. If Scotland votes for independence, it will stay in the European Union. It would be in England’s interest.”
Oil – Westminster own reports say that oil prices will continue to rise and oil production will be there until 2055. Page 24 of https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/175480/bis-13-748-uk-oil-and-gas-industrial-strategy.pdf . This is excluding further discoveries.Never mind the fact that the industry itself see’s North Sea Oil being there far into the future. You state oil revenues, this is countered by oil companies coming out and saying that the reason there has been mixed investment into the North Sea due to Westminster’s inability to keep a stable tax and fiscal policy. 16 changes in 10 years by Westminster Governments. Plus the remaining oil left is valued at AT LEAST £1.5 Trillion.
Banks – Ahh the banks, the banks that became Scottish AFTER they crashed. The UK bailed out the banks in 2008 to the tune of £66 Billion, Scottish GDP for 2008 was, ohh only £145 Billion. Damn. Also the US federal reserve bailed out UK banks by about roughly $1 Trillion. Banks are bailed out where the contagion is, not where their head office is. The real question on the banks is : Would an Independent Scotland have allowed the banks to bet like theres no tomorrow with everyones money?
Credibility – http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/why-an-independent-scotland-could-become-the-richest-country-on-earth-9096120.html Also Satandard and Poors the global ratings service said “Even excluding North Sea Output, Scotland would qualify for our highest economic assessment” Feb 2014. “if its geographic share of North Sea Oil and Gas is taken into account, Scotland’s GDP per head is bigger than that of France” <- Financial Times Feb 2014. Also the GERS reports (Government Expenditure Revenue Scotland) confirm that Scotland contributes more tax per head, and in all actuality is essentially robbed of £4.4 Billion per year. 8.4% of the UK population pays 9.9% of UK tax take.
Natural Resources – Scotland is Europe's largest oil producing nation and also boasts 25% of Europe's renewable energy potential. Scotland has a vast range of sectors and oil is only a small part of it. Around 15% of Scotland's economy. On contrast oil makes up around 25% of Norway's economy and I don't hear them complaining.
I would suggest that before you repeat the BBC propaganda (which has been found guilty of favouring the No side by its own BBC Trust) and the Better Together campaign (which calls itself Project Fear) you do some research on the subject and ask yourself, who is better placed to govern Scotland? London Centric Westminster or a government that actually stays in Scotland. As Vince Cable MP said "London is becoming a giant suction machine draining the life out of the rest of the country"

Thursday 1 May 2014

Sorting Fact from Fiction

Sorting Fact from Fiction:


Myth: Our global relationships won’t change

Fact: Scotland would be a new country. We wouldn’t inherit all the international deals the UK has struck over many years, decades, and even centuries (everything from extradition and trade treaties to the International Declaration Prohibiting the Discharge of Projectiles and Explosives from Balloons). So we’d have to start from scratch, negotiating to join everything from the UN to Nato.

Actual Fact : Scotland would not be a new country, it is already a country. It was a country before the treaty of union, it still is today. We wouldn't inherit all the international deals the UK has struck that is true, but if it is true for Scotland it must be true for the rUK. It was the UK not the rUK that signed those treaties. If the UK is a successor state, Scotland must be too. Otherwise both must start from scratch.

Myth: We’ll still play the National Lottery and share much-loved national institutions with the UK

Fact: It’s called the National Lottery – not the International Lottery. You can’t buy a ticket in France, so why would it run in an independent Scotland? The same goes for everything from the Met Office to the benefits system. We’d have to spend millions setting up new institutions.

Actual Fact : We may or may not be able to play the National Lottery, chances are we will as it is a privately run institution not a UK government one. Technically the “national lottery” is an international lottery. The UK itself describes itself as a country of countries. Does anyone else see the plural there? The benefits system, yes because we are unable to program a computer to transfer funds from government into personal bank accounts. Contrary to popular belief, computers are not difficult to program. All it takes is a little training and some patience. Scotland is more than capable of setting up such a system. Spend Millions in doing so? Well maybe, but once you factor in the rebate we should receive from rUK to the tune of £4.7 Billion for HS2, we'll still be making a net gain.

Myth: We’ll be an EU member (and inherit the same terms and conditions that the UK currently enjoys)

Fact: We’d have to apply as a new state and negotiate entry – it’s hard to imagine it would be an easy process (look at how long it took Croatia to join - almost eight years), and even harder to imagine that we’d be given advantageous terms (like the UK rebate or opt-outs, including from the Euro).

Actual Fact : Well given that it is widely accepted that Scotland will be in the EU as a continuing member this point is almost redundant. Though joining the EU isn't a 1st come 1st served basis. If you meet the criteria, you can join immediately. East Germany was welcomed into the EEC within 1 year of unification with West Germany. The Scottish Government has set a period of 18 months for these negotiations. “realistic” was the term used by the UK's official independent lawyer on the subject. There is also no mechanism to force countries to join the Euro (the UK likes to promote this Euro opt out to try to appease Eurosceptics that they are better than the rest of the EU when in reality they could just do what Sweden do), just like there is no mechanism to essentially kick Scotland out and force her to re-apply. The UK's rebate lasts until the next EU budget in 2020. Then it is re-negotiated. Scotland is applying for no detriment membership to the EU. Meaning that no other members will be left out, and everything will continue, with Scotland paying her share instead of handing over her taxes to Westminster to pay it for her. This seems the most logical route.

Myth: We’ll keep the UK pound

Fact: Labour, Conservatives and Lib Dems have all made clear if we leave the UK we’ll also leave the UK pound. A currency union would not work for Scotland or the rest of the UK – it will not happen.

Actual Fact : New Labour, Lib Dems and Tories are either economically illiterate, or they think we are. They do not own Sterling, just like the US doesn't own the US Dollar. Panama etc … This point is tired and old, especially given the “of course” to a currency union as reported in the Guardian from an unnamed UK minister.

Myth: We wouldn’t have to bailout our banks – international investors bailed them out before

Fact: During the last crisis the UK taxpayer shelled out £66 billion to bail out the banks – more than £1,000 for every man, woman and child in the UK. Including guarantees, UK taxpayers gave more than £320 billion of support to Royal Bank of Scotland alone. Could we really afford these sorts of sums on our own?

Actual Fact : Banks are bailed out based on where the contagion is, not where the head office is located. Take 2008, RBS do about 10% of their business in Scotland. Scotland would then have paid 10% of the bailout. Barclays was one of the major UK banks to be bailed out by the US federal reserve, as it did an awful lot of business across the pond. Look it up if you don't believe me.

Myth: The answers are in the independence white paper and it all adds up

Fact: The white paper does not answer the key questions. Many of the independence plans, for example on currency and EU membership, are in the hands of foreign governments who would be acting in the interests of their own citizens ahead of Scotland’s. And the white paper does not add up - the plans to cut taxes and extend childcare need £1.6 billion of additional funding.

Actual Fact : Currency – no one can tell any government what it can use a legal tender. There are also 4 currency options in the white paper. EU – already answered, Scotland will be in the EU. The EU needs Scotland for energy, agriculture and fishing. If Scotland is not in the EU those treaties will not apply and Scotland could not allow foreign vessels in her waters. The Scottish route is also vital to get to Norway's waters too, will the EU really let go of all those fishing grounds? £1.6 Billion in extra funding – post indy the UK will need to pay Scotland £4.7 Billion for her share of the “national infrastructure” HS2, which will come no where near Scotland. £4.7 - £1.6 = £3.1 Billion left to play with. That'll do nicely thank you.

Myth: There would be tax cuts and more spending in an independent Scotland

Fact: Scotland spent £12 billion more than it raised in taxes last year (that’s from the Scottish Government’s own figures, including North Sea revenues). So it’s hard to see how we’d be able cut corporation tax and air passenger duty on one hand but still spend more on benefits and create an oil fund on the other.

Actual Fact : Scotland runs a deficit, like every other country. It is a smaller % of GDP that the UK's to be honest. Scotland's deficit was so high in the last financial year due to “record investment” in the north sea. Which of course offsets tax receipts. When the North Sea starts producing again deficit bye bye, Though the deficit is relying on Scotland's spending being the same. Here's me thinking we'd make savings by not paying for the Royal family, the Westminster gravy train, Trident and HS2.

Myth: Westminster won’t devolve more powers


Fact: More powers were devolved in the Scotland Act 2012 (the largest devolution of tax powers in the UK’s history). As a result we now set even more of our own laws, from motorway speed limits to regulating air weapons. Plus, all three main UK parties have promised more powers will be devolved in future.

Actual Fact : Johann Lamont called further devolution “propaganda” - enough said.

Myth: You can’t trust unionists, they’re just negative

Fact: The union has been a huge success story (from joint sporting glory to the amazing scientific collaborations that created Dolly the Sheep!) for more than 300 years – that’s why the rest of the UK doesn’t want us to leave.

Actual Fact : The Union has been such a success story that 59 countries have left Westminster's control since the American Revolution. Sports stars will continue to train together and scientists will continue to collaborate. Much in the same way that science is conducted today. Unless it's North Korea or maybe China, science doesn't stop at borders.

Myth: Remaining North Sea oil and gas is worth £1.5 trillion - and at least £6.8 billion in Scottish tax revenues in first year of independence

Fact: The Scottish Government assumes that oil and gas can be produced at zero costs (so rigs and pipelines can be built and run for free, and oil workers don’t need to be paid), despite the remaining oil being further off-shore and deeper under the ocean, so it costs more to extract. Over the last two years, taxes from the North Sea have been £3 billion below the Scottish Government’s most pessimistic forecast – that’s the same as our entire education budget.


Actual Fact : There is debate over how much in value is left of North Sea Oil. The lowest is the OBR's £1.5 Trillion. European experts say its closer to £2.5 while the industry itself says £4 Trillion. The truth is, that oil is a bonus to the Scottish economy not the centre of it. It would be foolish to base an entire economy around one sector, unless of course you're the UK and that sector is the casino style banking of the city of London. Also the total for tax revenues include tax paid by north sea workers, not just from the sale to allow these oil companies to use our resource. The cost of extraction and building is taken by the oil companies not the tax payer