After calling for

[Deeranged]

The simple way to stop independence is not voting for the SNP either as first past the post vote or in your second vote.

I want independence but don't vote SNP (despite what the troll will tell you) so that doesn't suit me at all.

[BCram]

I want independence but don't vote SNP (despite what the troll will tell you) so that doesn't suit me at all.

Very interesting concept. Do you think there is a Barnet subsidy? Do you have a solution to the currency question? Not having a go Deeranged. You might be able to provide opinions that do not rely on SNP dogma. I doubt the wisdom of independence in the current state of chaos with covid and Brexit but I am interested to hear views that are different from my own.

[islaydarkblue]

The simple way to stop independence is not voting for the SNP either as first past the post vote or in your second vote.

Unfortunately there are a lot of people in Scotland who think that independence will solve everything and it will be money no object.
Prior to 2014 independence referendum the prominent SNP supporters on islay used to be continually having letters published in local newspaper that an independent Scotland would allow the Government to pull fiscal levers.
When challenged these Islay based SNP supporters could not answer which fiscal levers they would be able to pull and what the benefits would be.
Two years ago Michael Russell was a panelist on BBC Question Time and he had to admit that the Scottish Government had already been granted extra welfare powers but they could not use them as they were too expensive to use.
There is no point in Nicola and the financial secretary Kate Forbes complaining about not having enough powers when they already have welfare powers which they will not use because they are too expensive.
This is the real world for the SNP controlled Scottish Government not a wee pretendy Parliament.

[BCram]

Islay. The GERS and the Barnet formula are vehemently disputed by the SNP supporters. I can't understand a word of their rebuttals. How about trying to understand why they think these figures are wrong and that Scotland can operate on it's own as independent from Westminster but part of the EU.

[Deeranged]

Very interesting concept. Do you think there is a Barnet subsidy? Do you have a solution to the currency question? Not having a go Deeranged. You might be able to provide opinions that do not rely on SNP dogma. I doubt the wisdom of independence in the current state of chaos with covid and Brexit but I am interested to hear views that are different from my own.

There is no Barnett subsidy, it's another Westminster fallacy.

As it stands Scottish public sector revenues are collected by either the Scottish or UK government and sent to the UK treasury, revenue collected by the Scottish government is not retained in Scotland for its sole use. The current Barnett formula uses a fairly simple (on the face of it it's simple) calculation and is designed to allocate the same £ per person change PA to the devolved nations that is experienced by England. This amount is then applied to the base amount and awarded to Scotland as a block grant. However the hidden aspect of the formula is that it's designed to reduce the amount of annual spending overall in devolved nations in comparison to England. It doesn't allocate back to Scotland from the UK treasury the full amount that it gives the UK treasury; the block grant is not based on the needs of Scotland or indeed on the revenue raised in Scotland - it's a fiddle. if the full amount transferred to the UK was retained within Scotland we'd instantly be better off as a nation. For me this is why the Westminster government is so reluctant to lose Scotland from its grip, it would result in a net reduction of earnings to the UK (let's face it English) treasury.

My understanding is that the GERS figures are irrelevant as they are representative of a point in time (right now), are an estimate only and are not intended as a forecast. The major flaw in GERS is that if Scotland applied revenues in the same way as they are applied by the UK government then, as things stand right now, they would be a reasonable estimate of where Scotland would be right now. However in any different situation it's more than reasonable to assume that any other government would apply the revenue in an entirely different way. This can of course work two ways and finances could improve or could decline. There's no way of knowing what would happen and GERS figures are not an attempt to show what would or could happen in any other circumstances other than those prevailing now. So, an irrelevance in any process resulting in any degree of change.

I don't do politics and am not an economist but as I've said previously a great friend of mine, an Englishman for the record, who was a retired professor of economics at St. Andrews University was adamant that Scotland, Wales and NI would each be better off away from the union with Scotland positioned to be as wealthy as England if not more so. If a man like him is saying that I'm inclined to believe it.

[Deeranged]

Islay. The GERS and the Barnet formula are vehemently disputed by the SNP supporters. I can't understand a word of their rebuttals. How about trying to understand why they think these figures are wrong and that Scotland can operate on it's own as independent from Westminster but part of the EU.

It's not only SNP supporters who believe the figures to be irrelevant to any future independent Scottish nation. Anyone that wants independence will dispute them; only vehement unionists are complacent enough to sit back and take them as read.

[pertharab]

There is no Barnett subsidy, it's another Westminster fallacy.

As it stands Scottish public sector revenues are collected by either the Scottish or UK government and sent to the UK treasury, revenue collected by the Scottish government is not retained in Scotland for its sole use. The current Barnett formula uses a fairly simple (on the face of it it's simple) calculation and is designed to allocate the same £ per person change PA to the devolved nations that is experienced by England. This amount is then applied to the base amount and awarded to Scotland as a block grant. However the hidden aspect of the formula is that it's designed to reduce the amount of annual spending overall in devolved nations in comparison to England. It doesn't allocate back to Scotland from the UK treasury the full amount that it gives the UK treasury; the block grant is not based on the needs of Scotland or indeed on the revenue raised in Scotland - it's a fiddle. if the full amount transferred to the UK was retained within Scotland we'd instantly be better off as a nation. For me this is why the Westminster government is so reluctant to lose Scotland from its grip, it would result in a net reduction of earnings to the UK (let's face it English) treasury.

My understanding is that the GERS figures are irrelevant as they are representative of a point in time (right now), are an estimate only and are not intended as a forecast. The major flaw in GERS is that if Scotland applied revenues in the same way as they are applied by the UK government then, as things stand right now, they would be a reasonable estimate of where Scotland would be right now. However in any different situation it's more than reasonable to assume that any other government would apply the revenue in an entirely different way. This can of course work two ways and finances could improve or could decline. There's no way of knowing what would happen and GERS figures are not an attempt to show what would or could happen in any other circumstances other than those prevailing now. So, an irrelevance in any process resulting in any degree of change.

I don't do politics and am not an economist but as I've said previously a great friend of mine, an Englishman for the record, who was a retired professor of economics at St. Andrews University was adamant that Scotland, Wales and NI would each be better off away from the union with Scotland positioned to be as wealthy as England if not more so. If a man like him is saying that I'm inclined to believe it.

I've never felt the need to reply to a post on your board before but taking into account that a number of your posters are 'welcomed' on our board and listened to in respect of their views on politics and covid (not so much on the football) I put forward that I have never read such a load of crap as the above post. Of course the Barnet formula is beneficial to Scotland. Most SNP folk know that and some actually admit to it. The fact that we would undoubtedly be worse off financially and would have no ready currency to use are the main two reasons that I, as patriotic a Scot as the next man, is scared to death for the future of our country out of the UK. And before any assumptions are made I have voted SNP in the past but have mostly voted Labour and certainly never Tory.

[BCram]

Thanks Deeranged. I understand the point t you make a out the ta es send to Westminster being more than we get back than the block grant. I thought the point was that the government expenditure on pensions and health and education etc was more than the money we raise in taxes and send to Westminster. Westminster has been spending more than it collects for decades so perhaps Scotland spends more than the taxes they collect?
As for your economist friend could you find out if he is still of the same opinion? I can't remember the name of the report that showed if S otland got the oil revenues we would be a very rich country. It was buried y Westminster because of the post it would give to Scottish nationalism. Gordon Wilson's slogan It's Scotlands Oil was a great rallying cry.

[BCram]

I've never felt the need to reply to a post on your board before but taking into account that a number of your posters are 'welcomed' on our board and listened to in respect of their views on politics and covid (not so much on the football) I put forward that I have never read such a load of crap as the above post. Of course the Barnet formula is beneficial to Scotland. Most SNP folk know that and some actually admit to it. The fact that we would undoubtedly be worse off financially and would have no ready currency to use are the main two reasons that I, as patriotic a Scot as the next man, is scared to death for the future of our country out of the UK. And before any assumptions are made I have voted SNP in the past but have mostly voted Labour and certainly never Tory.

I think there must be a different way of looking at the figures. I agree that the nationalist view does not make sense, but if you assume that they are reasonable people why not try to understand why they are right and doubters like me are wrong. The currency may not be an issue. Denmark Sweden and Finland have their own currency I believe so perhaps a new Scottish currency might work for Scotland if we were part of the EU. Where Scotland differs is the share of the pension lia ilities and historic debt with the rest of GB &NI.y

[Deeranged]

I've never felt the need to reply to a post on your board before but taking into account that a number of your posters are 'welcomed' on our board and listened to in respect of their views on politics and covid (not so much on the football) I put forward that I have never read such a load of crap as the above post. Of course the Barnet formula is beneficial to Scotland. Most SNP folk know that and some actually admit to it. The fact that we would undoubtedly be worse off financially and would have no ready currency to use are the main two reasons that I, as patriotic a Scot as the next man, is scared to death for the future of our country out of the UK. And before any assumptions are made I have voted SNP in the past but have mostly voted Labour and certainly never Tory.

But then you're an Arab and probably believe it when you're told your club's word famous.

You need to read more than one source, please provide your evidence for saying 'of course the Barnet formula is beneficial to Scotland'. Are you basing that on the idea that if it wasn't there then Scotland would get nothing. or less, from central funds despite contributing proportionally?

No patriotic Scot is happy under the heel of our southern oppressor, SNP voter or not.

(last part written for effect)