When you listen to his guff think to yourself "Do I really want to listen to this advice and opinion from another of Westminsters failed chancellors of the exchequer?
All the above done despite Treasury and Bank of England advice to the contrary!
Broken joined up thinking! All the more reason to vote
'Scots face £1K deficit growth per person under independence' say the impartial Centre for Public Policy for Regions (CPPR),
Scotland would be "significantly worse off" under independence, with its deficit growing by an average of £1,000 per person, according to economists.
Research by the impartial Centre for Public Policy for Regions (CPPR), an economic think tank, warned that Alex Salmond had "skewed in an optimistic manner" estimates for North Sea oil revenues and failed to incorporate recent downward trends in production.
Researchers examined recently published Government Expenditure and Revenue Scotland figures, which suggested Scotland's share of the deficit grew last year following a 40% drop in oil revenue.
They also looked at Office of Budget Responsibility (OBR) assessments downgrading oil revenue by £3 billion.
That left official Westmister OBR projections for 2016/17 revenues at less than half the level of the Scottish government's most pessmisitic predictions.
"Based on the OBR's [Office of Budget Responsibility] latest forecasts, Scotland's fiscal position, relative to the UK, continues to worsen," John McLaren, one of the economists who carried out the work, said.
"We now need the Scottish government to update its own alternative, North Sea oil tax scenarios, based on the latest information available, in order to judge how these might affect Scotland's future fiscal balance."
With declining oil revenue, Scotland would be worse off by £1,000 per head, or three per cent of GDP, between 2014/15 and 2018/19.
If oil revenues stayed below forecasts, spending would have to be cut or taxes raised.
There is growing anger about the Scottish government oil revenue forecasts, which were supposed to be updated regularly.
Worryingly for Salmond, four of the Scottish government's assessments have been more optimistic than the OBR's, even though the OBR figures have consistently overestimated North Sea oil revenue.
The CPPR claims that it is a neutral organisation but what is the truth behind their claims? Did you know that the report's author, Professor John McLaren, spent 11 years as Head of Policy Research at the Scottish Labour Party and then with the establishment of the Scottish Parliament became a special adviser to Donald Dewar and Henry McLeish?
And Jo Armstrong is a former policy adviser to Labour First Minister Jack McConnell (Now Baron McConnell) amongst her many connections with Labour.
As for the OBR - well, it is no more than a tool of the Westminster establishement. The OBR didn’t exist prior to the 2010 UK General Election. The body was the brainchild of UK Chancellor George Osborne. The Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) was established in 2010 to provide independent and authoritative analysis of the UK’s public finances. It consists of a three member committee, the members are: Robert Chote, Steve Nickell and Graham Parker.
Some commentators have opined that the pessimistic revenue forecasts provided by the OBR are politically motivated and have little to do with reality. However, of more significance is the appalling inaccuracy of the OBR's forecasts. Its current predictions for oil revenues are lower than anyone else's and respected oil economist Professor Alex Kemp recently described the OBR’s forecasts as “contrary to the evidence from the industry.”
The problem is, Innes, you believe everything you read in the Telegraph, the Mail and the Record. If you took the time to look a little deeper, or even just to think about things a bit, you would realise that it is in Westminster's interests to present the worst possible set of figures for the perusal of the electorate. An increasingly sophisticated Scottish electorate is beginning to work this out.
I wish I could find the source of the statement issued not that long ago which stated there was more oil left in the North Sea than has been extracted so far. It maybe more difficult to get out in the future but it is there. Extraction methods are being developed and honed all the time.
There is also the west coast which bears the same oil bearing strata as the North Sea.
Oil was found in the Clyde Estuary in the 70's but development was put on hold due to submarine activity!
I still hear the same old rubbish about the volatility and unpredictability of the price of oil, which, apparently, would only occur in an independent Scotland - if you believe BT!
I was banned from 2 BT sites for suggesting that it will be as volitile and unpredictable for them as well as us!
I don't think they were prepared to accept that simple fact!
.
In case you didn't get the message fomr the letter from the DWP above :
The reality is that pensions are more affordable in Scotland than in the rest of the UK, a view supported by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, who have also made clear that the demographic challenge is no more significant for Scotland than it is to the rest of the UK.
“We also know that insurance providers, including HSBC and the Department of Work and Pensions itself, are clear that pensions would be unaffected following a Yes vote.
was more oil left in the North Sea than has been extracted so far
No one is disputing that there is more oil. But just because it is there doesn't mean it is worth something. There are millions of tonnes of coal left too, but it became cheaper to get it elsewhere so the pits closed down. it is similar in the north sea. It has always been harder and more expensive to extract and now that new energies are coming on line, and cheaper oil and gas are being found in shale and with fracking the cost of oil is tumbling whilst North Sea Oil is stuck with being more expensive. This is why Scotland's oil revenues are set to plunge and have already fallen dramatically.
Oh, we've both got a sense of humour. I quite liked that. The trouble is that with figures the Yes Campaign doesn't even know where to begin. And Alex is so embarrassed he doesn't want to show what they came up with in case his followers and the other "Don't Knows" catch on to the fact he has been making it up as he goes along ever since he started. Of course the fact he was a banker must have something to do with it.
NickB wrote:.
In case you didn't get the message fomr the letter from the DWP above :
The reality is that pensions are more affordable in Scotland than in the rest of the UK, a view supported by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, who have also made clear that the demographic challenge is no more significant for Scotland than it is to the rest of the UK.
“We also know that insurance providers, including HSBC and the Department of Work and Pensions itself, are clear that pensions would be unaffected following a Yes vote.
Oh dear, and now the National Institute of Economic and Social research say, on their own website:
Publication Type: National Institute Economic Review, Publication Date: February, 2014, Theme(s): Economics of Scotland, External Author(s): David Bell, David Comerford and David Eiser
Economic issues will be key determinants of the outcome of the Scottish referendum on independence. Pensions are a key element of the economic case for or against independence. The costs of funding pensions in an independent Scotland would be influenced by mortality risks, the costs of borrowing and the segmentation of costs and risks (i.e. pricing to Scotland's experience rather than pooled across UK experience). We compare the overall costs of providing pensions in an independent Scotland against the resources that are available to cover these costs. Scotland has worse mortality experience than the UK as a whole, and Scottish government debt is likely to attract a liquidity premium relative to UK government debt. An independent Scottish government would have to create a bond market for public debt. The liquidity premium would make pensions cheaper to buy, but taxpayers or the consumers of public services would have to pay the cost.
Isn't it nice to get a little bit of honesty once in a while?
The liquidity premium would make pensions cheaper to buy, but taxpayers or the consumers of public services would have to pay the cost
There you go, again, being selective with the whole truth. Read the whole thing and it says you have to pay for it..........through higher taxes.
Once again a Yes supporter tries to deceive the Scottish public and uses his own website, set up as a neutral community forum to do it on. The dishonesty is getting to stupid levels now.
The stupidity on your part is getting to dishonest levels now.
You don't make sense.
Of course I read a range of material, including Wings Over Scotland and the Yes Campaign website too. Your idea to rubbish every thing I say, and anyone else who supports the union, will fail. The truth will always come out in the end. Not that liars liars and con-men have the wit to understand that.
The Yes Campaign fails to answer every difficult question and uses every trick of the deceiver to avoid the issues that matter. The peoples of Scotland are being hoodwinked into a Fool's Paradise that will make all those that stay worse off.
You say
It's going to be a helluva ride.
You and the Yes Campaign are already taking the people for a ride, and it's disgusting to see. The first quality of a fairer, more equal society, honesty, is being thrown out before you've even started.
Elaine Rodger wrote:In what way will we be worse off?
SCOTLAND will be worse off than the rest of the UK to the tune of £1000 per person in the years immediately following Alex Salmond's proposed date of independence, according to an analysis published today.
.
This is not a new story, it is jut an old scare recycled using the existing OBR oil revenues forecast from a few months back.
The OBR is the creation and tool of George Osbourne.
According to a recent poll by Politics Home only 16% of voters believe it is genuinely independent.
I am more inclined to believe the figures and predictions from the industry body Oil & Gas UK. Their report for 2013 shows Brent Crude price steady at around $108 per barrel and production rising steadily from August through to September.
Innes, if you would just look behind the headlines once in a while you might be more credible. As it is I feel I am debating with Cameron's parrot.
