I was invited to sit in on a meeting of the Young Fabians in Scotland last night, where they were discussing whether Scotland could afford to be independent, or not. I was aware that two people with whom I have crossed swords in the past, being Kevin Hague, who is amongst other things the director of the profoundly pro-Unionist think thank ‘These Islands', and Jackie Baillie MSP, who is deputy leader of Labour in Scotland, had been invited so I expected some difference of opinion. But what I had not expected with the scale of economic illiteracy that was on view from all those who were asked to speak. Nor had I expected the sheer level of contempt for Scotland that was on display.
Two Fabian members gave opening economic presentations. The first was, supposedly, on the economics of deficits and debt. I genuinely suspect that the Institute for Economic Affairs would have been quite shocked at how right-wing fundamentalist it was. The household analogy was out in force. Money creation was always to be frowned upon. Government surpluses were equivalent to profits, apparently, and deficits to losses. Debt supposedly constrains the ability of a country to grow because of crowding out private sector activity, which will be news to the IMF, OECD and World Bank amongst many others right now. Ratings agencies determine the capacity of a country to borrow. Even Reinhardt and Rogoff made an uncorrected appearance, without getting a name check. Keynes never got the slightest look in. It was staggeringly inappropriate at this time, and I would hope always so for a Labour meeting, and, more important, was almost without exception quite simply wrong.
Then there was a presentation on the scale of Scottish deficits that assumed that the Government Expenditure and Revenue Scotland statement (GERS) is factual, and that Scotland runs the biggest deficit in Europe, and that this is utterly unsustainable. There was not a mention that GERS quite specifically says it provides no indication of how the economy of an independent Scotland might behave. Instead it was assumed that nothing would change if independence were to happen. How that constitutes a credible argument, even before the flaws in GERS are considered, is hard to conceive.
Jackie Baillie opened by acknowledging that she and I have differed on GERS. For those who want to know what I think wrong with it, this is a guide. She then acknowledged that she has no economics training. After that she proceeded to declare that GERS is unambiguously and categorically ‘correct', which is absurd, because that is a quality no national accounting data has. Given the preface to the comments I can only assume that this was intended as provocation.
Much anti-SNP comment followed from her, which could safely be ignored.
But she spent much of her time lamenting that cuts would be required to close the supposed deficit that she thinks would exist if Scotland were to be independent, before then using this as and the inability of Scotland to suffer theses cuts as a reason why independence must not happen.
However, and most tellingly, when asked what she would do if she was a leader in a Labour government she simply admitted that she could not imagine that happening. You could, of course interpret that as an admission that Labour has no hope of winning. I am quite sure that was what was intended. But you could also note it as a failure on the part of Labour to think about the issues that leadership demands. I think that just as likely. By implication Labour's policy in Scotland was made clear. It is to party that Scotland stays in the UK, with a Tory government if need be, as that is the only option for maintaining what they see as the desirable status quo for Scotland given that they believe that GERS is right and Scotland cannot manage its own affairs. The contempt for Scotland, its people and their abilities on display in this comment was quite staggering.
And then there was Kevin Hague, who presented some charts (no surprise there) all of which were designed to show Scotland has the worst economy in Europe. Kevin more than happily convinced himself, and all else present it seemed.
By this point it was 7.50 and I had forsaken fifty minutes of my life to quite the worst and ill-informed civil society economics discussion I had ever partaken in, and knew I would never get that time back. I was also aware that the Bake Off was on at 8 and the meeting was meant to last until 8.20, so I did not hold back, having made clear that I have no Scottish party allegiance and am quite critical of SNP policy right now.
I did of course explain all the well-known problems with GERS, and was laughed at.
I explained that the economics I had heard was shockingly wrong and inappropriate for Labour at this time and for this moment, and briefly explained why. That did not go down well.
I explained that an independent Scotland would record a massively different economic performance to that of Scotland now. I explained that it would have its own finance centre. It would record its own rents and financial income, and the tax due on both would be paid. It would measure its imports and exports, and financial flows. It could also control and tax t's own profits. But most importantly, it could invest in its own future and deliver sustainable growth. And so on. And I was openly laughed at. Jackie Baillie smirked in contempt throughout.
After that, I explained that it was impossible that Scotland alone accounts for the majority of the overall UK regional deficit. The only logical explanation has to be that the data is wrong, and of course it is. But that suggestion was met with incredulity. The data underpinning my claim is analysed here, and comes from GERS.
Kevin Hague replied and said I could not do arithmetic. His claim was that since the UK had no deficit in the period to which I referred it was arithmetically impossible for me to suggest that Scotland created the greatest part of it. As my data shows, his claim was wrong, but what was clear was that argument had disappeared and pedantry was on display. As a result I decided I had wasted enough time and made it clear to the meeting that the reason why Labour was now doing so badly in Scotland was apparent. It was the arrogance on display, plus the contempt for the capacity of Scotland and its people, as well as for their ability to manage themselves and their economy, plus the sheer scale of economic incompetence evidenced and its hardcore right-wing bias that explained that failure.
I then told them that since the quality of political and economic debate on The Bake Off was bound to be of a higher calibre than that in this meeting that was what I was going to watch, and left the meeting.
My conclusion is that I am wholly unsurprised that Jackie Baillie cannot imagine Labour forming the next Scottish government. Candidly, nor can I. And I would add that on this evidence, for the people of Scotland that is decidedly good news.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
It’s difficult to write anything serious about people exhibiting such monumental stupidity, lack of self-awareness and intellectual vacuity while polishing their mantra of “too wee, too poor, too stupid”.
And we thought that dinosaurs died out about 65m years ago, except for birds of course, who flourished in all their magnificent colourful variety – and then we have the wee cowrin beastie that remains of Scottish Labour…like Schrodinger’s [mouse], alive and brain dead at the same time.
The fact that they laughed at you tells you all about their level of economic understanding Richard
It is always frustrating when you know and can demonstrate that something is true or false, how hard it is to persuade others who haven’t taken the time to follow the evidence.
Time and again, people haven’t really ‘done the maths’.
Keep plugging away – and while you are watching quality television, spend a bit of time to get some thought provoking comments that will make people think. My current favourite is to talk about the deficit and highlight the number of years in which any repayment occurred – and ask ‘has the sky fallen in?’ – leave them with that.
🙂
I’m on the Facebook Friends of Corbyn group and can confirm that within Labour there’s a depressingly large hardcore faction rabidly opposed to any idea of money creation and rigid in their belief in the household analogy. They know what they know and are impervious to argument. I am reminded the problem with Britain isn’t its utterly corrupt ruling class, rather it’s the lower orders who embrace and facilitate the corrupt status quo.
It’s the ‘a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing’ scenario. They have imbibed something which makes sense to them. The intellectual effort to break out into a larger understanding is beyond them or they are too intellectually lazy to go there.
Add in the effect of groupthink and that is what you get.
There’s an outside chance iScotland might operate under MMT. I’m pushing for it in the ISP so hopefully we can get it aired in Holyrood. In a Zoom policy discussion recently I made the point that a govt deficit means the economy is in credit and a govt surplus means the economy is in deficit. People got that. It was encouraging.
Thanks
Good luck
Is there no forum/magazine/blog where this debate can be engaged properly? We should have gone past the smirking…
Brilliant.
I hope you are keeping up with Craig Murray as he stalks Michael Russell in the SNP election – the hustings for which are not to be broadcast or recorded and only a limited numbers of online attendees will be allowed.
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/11/where-are-the-praetorian-guard-when-you-need-them
& here
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/11/michael-russell-neo-liberal/
I have posted a link to this article at his site because it is essential reading for Scots as they are gaslighted into self harming by continued lack of independence from the old English Aristos and their minions in that country.
Welcome to the ideological dogma of Unionist Scotland; Conservative, Labour? Who can tell? Who cares any more? I have tried to explain the problem before, but you really do have to experience it for yourself. There is an old Scots expression for this journey of discovery (no doubt built on just this combination of lethal ignorance and blind conviction revealed); ‘ye ken noo’.
Keep this in mind, the people you were dealing with do not matter; however, like cushions that carry the imprint of the people who last sat on them and left their deep impression; they continue to cycle their simple gullibility as sacred thought to the public; and the circulation of discredited and discreditable ideas thus continues. This is why there is work still to do.
I think your phrase ‘too wee, too poor, too stupid’ sums the thinking up well
It’s not obvious that Scotland needs its Labour Party (often dismissively referred to as the Branch Office) any longer.
It will be interesting to see what the opinion of voters is at the next Holyrood elections.
Quite depressing. Labour needs a lot of Scottish seats to win an election. There seems no other way this awful Conservative government can be defeated. The Lib Dems seem to have no distinctive policy other than PR voting and anti-Brexit (which I agree with). The SNP would like to exit the UK, leaving us in England with a Tory majority.
A progressive alliance of Labour, Lib Dem and Green might do it but it would need a PR system or a policy of standing down in certain seats.
Meanwhile the Tories go further to the right and their self destruction will probably take us all down with it.
This was not progressive, I can assure you
The line about labour needing Scotland to win elections doesn’t stand up well to scrutiny. The most that might be said in the last 60-odd years since Scotland last voted tory, is that Scotland has enhanced the majorities Labour has won in England. Removing Scotland from the equation makes no difference to Labour’s time in power.
You pretty much took the words out of my mouth. Besides, the SNP will never support a Tory government so if Labour would get over their massive sulk they would see that SNP seats are anti-Tory seats and therefore available for any Labour-led coalition government. Labour does not need Scottish seats, they just need to be denied to the Tories and the SNP does that.
Rob, Labour has just over 200 seats. It needs about 320 to form a majority.
There are only six Tory seats north of the border. The English seats alone provide a majority. Labour needs every seat it can get.
Does anyone understand what Keir Starmer has just done in the latest episode of the Jeremy Corbyn affair? I may already be out of date on this, but it seems Corbyn is now, like Schrodinger’s Cat, neither in nor out of Labour – the worst of all possible worlds?
My own view is that Corbyn has been badly treated by our horrendous right-wing media.
You do realise Scottish seats have won the election only twice since N WW2?
Other than that we’ve merely added to the majority. Labour used to win elections in England & Wales all by themselves.
Put your big boy pants on and get busy
“A progressive alliance of Labour, Lib Dem and Green might do it but it would need a PR system or a policy of standing down in certain seats.
Ian, for this to happen Labour would have to behave intelligently, and cease their moronic tribalism.
1) Get rid of the ridiculous clause in their constitution requiring them to field a candidate in every constituency even when there’s no hope of winning the seat.
2) Agree with the other progressive parties that only 1 progressive candidate will stand in every constituency in the UK.
3) Make it clear to the electorate that this is an anti Tory coalition dedicated to breaking the FPTP derived Tory stranglehold on power.
4) And that if elected, they will replace FPTP with a decent PR system. No ifs, no buts, no excuses, it’ll be done.
What do you think the chances of this happening are? About as small as the square root of *ugger all I’d say. A
I fear so….
Just as in the 1980s, Scotland doesn’t vote tory – it gets tory governments because labour cannot win in England. As you recognise, Scotland has only 6 tory seats. Labour need to take tory seats in order to win. Labour need to win in England.
If England has tory government – it is because it wants tory government.
Why are you bothering ? I think the entire economic argument can be summed up in 2 questions.
Although these years of austerity and the coming Brexit where every penny must be saved ” why does Westminster hold on to Scotland exactly? ”
Is it because they like us lol?
Is it as these unionists seem to believe, that they just like throwing money at us? When they have never done that with any country at any point in history ever.
Or is it that Scotland generates far more money than we cost, that would be a good reason, do they have another reason?
And 2ndly, can ine just one of these “union at any cost ” unionists, tell you “why is Brexit better than independence exactly?”
Those 2 questions they simply cannot answer.
So why you are even bothering with logic or logical answers are beyond me, clearly, loguc, fact or reality is not a factor in their reasoning.
The reity is, that you have to accept is that, the debate is over, or rather if I could reinfoce that “THE DEBATE IS OVER ” if after all the lies of 2014, all the broken promises, the even after 6 years unfulfilled vow, Brexit, covid and the utter incompetence of Westminster these people are still supporting “union at any cost ” then no amount of facts or reality or cuddling is going to make one blind bit of difference, is it ?
The debate is over, get that reality round your head and refocus
Thanks Lawrence, that’s very well summarised. I have copied and pasted your text for future use.
I like your first question very much. However, I don’t understand the logic behind the second question. Surely Brexit and independence isn’t either/or. Scotland will have Brexit whether it likes it or not. Independence would be in addition to Brexit in the short term at least. If unravelling 40 years of shared laws and cross border trade with the EU is proving difficult and expensive, won’t unravelling 300 years of shared laws and cross border trade with England prove even more difficult and expensive. I think a lot of people who may see through the economic arguments still be frightened (?) to compound the folly of Brexit with an even more difficult separation however much they may see the logic of it in theory.
But there is no need to unravel with the rUK
By default the laws will be the same, at first, unless Scotland already has its own law, of which there is already quite a lot
Very true Lawrence. Like Trump’s ‘base’, or Brexiters, they are well past any kind of reasoned argument.
How depressing is it to break down their basic idea of, and vision for, Scotland..?
It is of a land and people incapable of maintaining by themselves a lifestyle above what they could otherwise earn for themselves and only provided for them through an annual “bung” from taxpayers from the south of England. They unquestioningly accept this, what any decent Scot should consider awful, as some kind of “good thing” which Scotland should, instead of lamenting – actually celebrate!
The answer to Scotland’s apparent penury – is for Scotland to stay in it, and be grateful.
I have utmost admiration for you managing to remain as long in that chimps tea party.
Labour – how are the mighty fallen….
Corbyn wasn’t a leader.
Starmer is Blair’s shadow taking labour back into obscurity as Tory lite.
Labour in Scotland are irrelevant.
The main issue is that the narrative isn’t changing.
My first year economics course just taught me all the outdated BS that Richard mentioned in his blog post.
This neoliberal ethos is taught as fact in the face of not only evidence, but economic failure.
Somehow people still genuinely believe this complete crap, including GERS.
Or –
the converse is they don’t; but, as we can see from the PPE free for all where money is no object, the narrative remains the same anyway because it keeps citizens ill informed so we don’t eject them all with pitchforks knowing a better society is hindered only by ideology.
Your account of the meeting makes my blood boil.
I’ve encountered exactly the same in discussions about MMT with supposedly bright people.
That is why I’m buying Kelton’s book for people and telling people to read it and make up their own mind whilst I just shut up.
There is nothing worse than smugness when debating these fundamental issues.
You can tell that the Left have what I call a dependency fostering culture – they cling to Thatcherite tropes in the hope that people will simply gravitate to them but have no intention of actually changing that which causes people to need help in the first place and seek out an alternative. Modern Labour sees Neo-liberalism as their supply line of discontents .
Except that people see through it all now. And it won’t work anymore. Because Labour has nothing new to say.
Looking back at my MA in which I studied knowledge management, the biggest problem is how to tackle ignorance. Libertarian tropes have ossified in our society.
I suppose we have just encourage people to read.
Sad to read this, and difficult to understand their position. Would it help in these debates to reference New Zealand? Almost identical population and GDP. Recognised as one of the most successful countries in the world, especially under current leadership. Why does Scottish labour think a fully independent Scotland would be any different to New Zealand? Would New Zealand be better off if it shared the Australian dollar?
No, it would not be
There are numerous such comparisons to be made
My sister has lived in NZ for 20 years. As I said to her recently, comparing their PM and political set up to ours, she doesn’t know how lucky she is. Imagine……….. a decent competent human being in charge; one, who, to my astonishment, has given the greens ministerial positions even though Labour’s win there means she didn’t need to! And a Labour party that actually is a competent progressive organisation.
If NZ can do it, why can’t an independent Scotland?
Indeed….
Why on earth did you lower yourself to attend, given that Hague and Baillie were on the bill?
We can all make decisions we regret
Did the pet food salesman use crayons to colour in his pie charts?
The only thing that surprises me here is that you agreed to be part of this. Surely you must have realised the level of debate to expect when you found out who the other “speakers” were?
Kevin blocked me a while back after I questioned the completely fabricated figures within one of his trademark pie charts and Jackie blocked me after I questioned her voting record. It was a good feeling knowing I would no longer need to debate with such blinkered minds. You should try it.
I live in hope
It was entirely misplaced in this case
Hague’s arguments and debunking of Independence “myths” on his website are quite persuasive, certainly beyond my capabilities in countering. I wonder if, given that that site is where a lot of Scotlands blue reds get their fix, it might be worth you Richard giving it a go?
There are better people to do that…
CommonWeal?
That old saw about playing chess with a doo springs to mind. They just knock the pieces over and s**t all over the board.
I felt sorry for you having to attend a meeting with Jackie Baillie et al –l sometimes think that she’s in it for the shit stirring and nothing else. and She is symptomatic Of the great Labour decline in Scotland along with her various entitled disenfranchised buddies who once ruled the roost and thought us all too daft to rumble them.
Gers is a case study in economic illiteracy and no serious student of the dismal science would use the report for anything other than a door stop
Completely understandable. They’re terrified of rising back into second place and therefore carrying the job of keeping Scotland in the UK. Never mind the intricacies of governing Scotland, they haven’t a clue how to do that, which means bending over for Gove to use them as his puppet.
If that happens, they know they’ll never return to power in Scotland. Whereas if they manage to hang back, there’s a very slim hope that whenever the SNP somehow goes away, they’ll be the first party of Scotland again.
A very slim hope ….. inconceivable I would say
As likely as Nick Clegg now becoming prime minister
It sounds very tiresome. When people bury their heads in the sand as those in the meeting, it’s either ignorance, or, they personally benefit hugely from the status quo, or both, but there is no excuse for ignorance there is such massive proof about what you say regarding Scotland’s ability to stand on her own two feet. One question I would pose to them is, why does the English treasury insist on paying for Scotland? Why would they do that, given they make cuts to the poorest people, but can’t say hang that, let’s ditch Scotland and save a few £billions into the bargain! We know the answer, and of course so do the unionists in that meeting. Scotland has been stolen from to the tune of £trillions, oil is not cheap, and it’s very expensive to extract, no company in the known world prospects for oil unless they have a very good idea it’s there in abundance. At the moment, no idea about the price of a barrel, but the industry is doing well out of Covid19, plastics are being used more than ever, it takes oil to make plastics.
It’s dirty stuff yes, but for Scotland to have had next to no benefit from it being extracted from their territorial waters, while kept poor and begging, is utterly tragic. The BritNats made little if any investment, if any really, in health, education, social care, infrastructure
job creation, etc. The Labour party HQ’d in London, when in power at Holyrood for 10 years invested not a penny that I can remember, but they did send £1.5 BILLION back to Westminster saying, ‘nothing to spend it on in Scotland’. What criminals. They also plunged Scotland into £billions of ‘debt’ with their PFI scams, is it not the case that Scotland will be paying that ‘debt for many years to come. Just think what our councils could be doing with those £billions right now. Again, criminal Labour legacy.
Scotland’s resources being taken by their neighbour has been the biggest heist for the EngGov, from right under the noses of the people. Win win for London.
For those who deny facts to con themselves, there is a great Upton Sinclair quote;
”It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it”.
For people to deny that GERS is anything but a con, is the height of denial on their part, the facts are there. The problem we do have is that these people especially the J. Baillie types, in political jobs, who take a rather lucrative wage from the public purse, get a platform to spout their falsities, knowing that some people will believe them. Happily though, as you point out, fewer people are fooled by their lies now.
I wonder if you haven’t totally wasted your time at that meeting, possibly, hopefully, sowing the seeds of doubt for even at least one person, who might care to question their own narrow beliefs about Scotland’s real fiscal health.
Thanks Hetty. Another excellent summary that I have copied for future use.
🙂
Oh did I just contribute to my CO2 output with that emoji?!
Judging by Richard’s description, it’s a classic example of a cult operating in an echo chamber: they all believe absolutely in what they’ve been told are the facts without anyone taking the trouble to check facts/basic data etc. Because it’s a closed society, nobody will speak up to challenge supposed facts as that would bring disapproval and ridicule from the others. Anyone who bothers to read/think outside the box and learn that there are other answers is more likely just to stop attending meetings. There’s also the somewhat sinister possibility that they only invited Richard to attend in order to indulge in a game of “shooty-in”. If so, beware doctored footage emerging.
Hague has form in doing that…
Sound like a nice bunch eh…it’s very cold today…brrrr.
😀 😀 😀 LOL nice one Richard!
I started off reading that, wondering how you could tolerate a meeting with such insanely blinkered swivel-eyed economic illiterates: so it was entertaining to find out that, indeed, you can’t. Ohhhh I wish I’d seen it. Bake Off with a higher calibre of political and economic debate LOL. (Very true though)
There is no converting, or rational argument that can be used, and there is no reasoning with them. Classic case of confirmation bias, in the extreme. They have a belief, and that includes the idea of Scots being inferior (so, they themselves are inferior – they don’t believe they should be able to run a country), and they will cling onto *anything* that confirms that belief. They don’t want to know how economics works if it shows that Scotland could successfully be independent. If you had a new economic theory that showed Scotland would fail miserably as an independent country, they’d be all over you like a rash, and ignore the ‘accepted’ household budget analogies. It is an exercise in frustration even trying to engage with this kind of non-thinking.
Hetty is right though, and from our (those that do support independence) point of view, there is always a chance you sowed the seeds of doubt in some minds, or even changed a mind of someone listening – and that’s always worthwhile. Soon (I hope) they will have to waken up to the fact their supposed economic arguments no longer work, and at least shut up from spouting drivel. Who knows what new ‘strong argument’ they’ll latch on to next though.
🙂
@Contrary
“Ohhhh I wish I’d seen it.”
Don’t worry, the video of the meeting will soon be available and then you’ll be able to see what happened. I’m sure Richard will happily post a link. Because he will want everyone to see.
Won’t that make for some great viewing!
You lot will be embarrassed
I am sure Jackie Baillie will be delighted to have her inability to imagine a Scottish Labour government on record
Steve, the *doctored* video will be out there no doubt – after they’ve edited it sufficiently – and probably won’t be as fun as the real thing.
Richard – the cringe runs deep in Scottish society, we are told to be embarrassed to be ourselves, and it is caused in the main (we now know) by those exact people that do the cringe so well, and their like, but we have to accept that it takes all sorts, and live with knowing they aren’t representative – hopefully they only embarrass themselves. But, we are good at the cringe and can weather it for a bit of entertainment 😉
Jackie Baillie is like a dug with a bone on the harassment committee, and she is a sharp and effective interrogator so at the moment what skills she has are of use, I’d never choose her as a representative myself though, for all that – her old corrupt establishment Labour politics is not something we should have anywhere near government. She’s not interested in forming a government, of course, and I doubt she cares if it’s made public – they really are a cringeworthy sight to behold, but that’s what we are up against.
I’m not sure what they hope I will be embarrassed by
I sought to refute their arguments, which I think I did without seeking to use too much of their timne
I told Kevin Hague he was being crass when he was
I talked over him to make the point I was leaving
Whoopee!
The opposition to MMT is like the creationist claim that god must ‘sustain life’ because of the second law of thermodynamics (there are people who claim this). The 2nd Law doesn’t apply to life because the earth is not a closed system, the sun pours energy into the biosphere.
So with MMT govts create money so the household analogy doesn’t work for the same reasons. Swap Central Bank for the sun and it’s the same principle.
🙂
If it were true that Scotland gets an annual bung from England, why should the poor of England suffer because Scotlands unionist politicians economic incompetence.
You should have asked them if they believe their gers is correct why did they hide the Macrone report ???
Richard,
Your base critique of GERS seems to be that Scotland can’t represent such a high proportion of the U.K. deficit.
But surely that’s a flawed conclusion based on your misunderstanding of hearing, a simple enough mathematical concept.
For example take a 4 “nation” fiscal union:
A surplus of 20
B a deficit of 10
C a deficit of 10
D a deficit of 4
The total deficit for the A-D union is therefore 4.
Your critique would be that this is impossible as D represents 100% of the A-D deficit.
But surely you can see that taking a subset percentage of a fungible net tally is illogical.
These are the principles you are applying to GERS so I’m rather lost as to why you can’t see the fallacy in your argument.
I suggest you read a lot more of what I have written about GERS. This is not my main objection to it
What you need to ask is the question why are such stats supposedly possible and not do they mathematically exist, which is not the issue at all
Then you might realise why I raise the issue
Otherwise you’ll remain in the wilderness of pedantry with Kevin Hague
But it is a criticism of GERS that you have cited. I presume you don’t need me to provide evidence from your own Twitter feed and blog.
Therefore if you know it’s mathematically not credible why cite it at all.
The stats are entirely possible because you are comparing a fungible tally with a subset.
Your numerator and denominator are inconsistent, it’s as simple as that.
This isn’t pedantry is a fallacy on your part, based on an misunderstand of basic math.
I’m sure you have other criticisms of GERS but this one just has zero credibility.
With respect, no it isn’t
We are not playing numbers here
We are discussing economics
You may, and many do, think it us the same thing
It isn’t
When I said it is nit possible to get this result I meant it is not economically credible, and not that that maths is wrong
You entirely miss the point – as did Kevin Hague, of course
Errr Richard you are clearly on the record of saying repeatedly that GERS shows Scotland makes up c55% of the U.K. deficit.
It doesn’t show that as I’ve explained to you in basic mathematical terms.
It’s not economically credible to have Scotland representing 55% of the U.K. deficit precisely because that 55% is a fallacy.
I really am not missing the point, the scale of the Scottish deficit in the context of the U.K. and similar sized populations are areas of the U.K. is entirely credible economically and mathematically.
Perhaps you want to better express your case and stop quoting an obviously wrong 55%.
I have made my point
You choose to ignore it
I am really not interested in doing so again
Richard,
Your base critique of GERS seems to be that Scotland can’t represent such a high proportion of the U.K. deficit.
But surely that’s a flawed conclusion based on your misunderstanding of hearing, a simple enough mathematical concept.
For example take a 4 “nation” fiscal union:
A surplus of 20
B a deficit of 10
C a deficit of 10
D a deficit of 4
The total deficit for the A-D union is therefore 4.
Your critique would be that this is impossible as D represents 100% of the A-D deficit.
But surely you can see that taking a subset percentage of a fungible net tally is illogical.
These are the principles you are applying to GERS so I’m rather lost as to why you can’t see the fallacy in your argument?
Mr Lovatt,
Perhaps you would care to tell us what you mean by the term “represents”, because according to your highly abstracted calculation D does not “represent” the deficit, but in fact only accounts for 16% of the total deficit of 24 produced by the identifiers B,C,D? In fact it just happens ‘accidentally’ to be the same figure as the net deficit, that is all: but it isn’t even accidental, because you created the example, so it was quite deliberate; much like the reality of GERS (recall that its architect, a Conservative Secretary of State for Scotland deliberately set it up to do precisely this job). I submit your example is just idle chaff.
Turn now to reality. Here the Scottish deficit is certainly represented (where represented means represented, no inverted commas required) as most of the UK deficit, with the quite deliberate intent of representing Scotland as an economic basket-case. This is UK policy (the British Government is not a friend of devolution or the Scottish Parliament). Notice that what we are talking about here is net fiscal positions; ‘fiscal’ gives the clue that this is created and executed by Government. It is no accident.
We can see this same problem throughout the UK; the UK is a genuine basket-case economy. Here only three regions produce surpluses (London, South East and East of England); thus only 34% of the UK population live in regions that produce surpluses; 64% of the whole population are in deficit. This is not an accident either; if it was an accident, you would not accept it, becuase it would tell you the country’s economy is very badly distorted. You would correct it. There is no desire to correct it.
Government policy for decades has been to concentrate all the UK resources to serve around one-third of the population, around London; all infrastructure leads to London. Indeed London, with only 13% of the UK population produces over half the total fiscal surplus; another non-accident. This is not ‘brilliance’, it is just policy developed and executed by a very narrow range of vested and incestuously related interests; it is certainly not in the UK national interest, and could have been dealt with at any time over the last forty years.
John
You’re talking to an acolyte of Kevin Hague
Political economy – the way this data is used to oppress Scotland, whatever it’s accuracy or otherwise – is an issue beyond their ken
Richard
I do not recall reading either a book or academic journal article by Mr Hague in the literature. It does not appear that I have missed anything.
John,
The contention that this represents a relevent number comes from RJM. It’s his claim (not mine) that Scotland represents 55% of the UK deficit and therefore this is wrong. The example is therefore to demonstrate the fallacy. I’m glad that you have picked up on it and similarly called him out on it, because I also agree that the 55% is “idle chaff”.
I think you might want to reflect on the fact that GERS was rewritten by the SNP with the Cuthberts when they came to power, so I’m not sure that related them to the original GERS makes much sense, especially as the SNP regard them as the kitemark and authoritative publication on Scotland’s finances.
Now Scot;and’s deficit is only represented as most of the UK’s deficit by RJM, most others look at it on it’s own. For example the data shows one consistent theme, Scotland’s tax revenue is entirely in line with that of the UK (remarkable in itself as that includes London and the South) the deficit then is caused by our much higher public spending. Why the latter makes us a basket case in your eyes I really don’t know, why also higher public spending (not an accident but a deliberate policy) makes us not a friend of the UK either I’m just not sure.
When you say “There is no desire to correct it.” then surely it’s the policy of the fiscal transfers from London and the south to the rest of the UK that is designed to correct. Like me you might want to argue that those transfers should be bigger, but given those that support independence want to end the fiscal transfers and effectively leave more money and wealth in London I really don’t see their logic.
If it were UK government policy to concentrate resources in London and the South why would their be fiscal transfers out at all?
There are so many errors implicit in these claims I really can’t be bothered to waste time in them
Read past posts
Richard – who do you think is using this SNP Government produced data to oppress Scotland. If that were the case the SNP would just stop producing them surely? Surely it’s those that misrepresent the data, like the 55% “chaff” that John S Warren called out that’s the problem.
The data is produced by the ONS in this case
But again, you are ignoring that and the political economy of it
Surely the point is that these people are implacably opposed to Scottish independence? In order to come up with reasons to reject it they are required to come up with an economic argument which proves that Scotland is, was and will be an economic basket case.
I suspect that Jackie Baillie at least is intelligent enough to know that the case is weak but they can never concede that their GERS argument is wrong headed for that would leave them naked in the conference chamber.
Agreed
Mr Lovatt,
You have already resorted to casuistry. You have not explained your use of the term “represents”. The idle chaff to which I referred was in relation solely to what you wrote. I have no time for this kind of crude substitute for rigorous analysis, and will not accept it. Period.
I am probably insufficiently casual and wanton to wish to claim to speak for the Cuthberts; but you should note that they have written critically of GERS over the years, and James Cuthbert was in a good position to know. But let me be transparent here; the use of statistics is in any case not enough to shore up the inadequate basic GERS data structure. It has been in a continuing process of updating and correction for many years (large prior-year adjustments are made almost evey year); unfortunately civil servants have to make-do with the parameters they are set. They have to make-do with Priti Patel for example, and when confronted with an insurmountable problem of this kind, they just have to make the best of it. GERS is a concoction with about as much reliability as Dido Harding’s national ‘Test and Trace’ system. I am sure it will finally be in good shape, in the long term; which, as Keynes reminded us, will arrive when we are all dead.
If you are really interested in GERS I suggest you read closely its own explanation of its methodology. Indeed even the methodology iself is loose and imprecise, and there is no attempt to provide information in sufficient detail even to establish the precise source, or make-up of the output in any detailed way. It is all generalised and intangible. Detailed ex-post scrutiny of what GERS produces is not possible. It is just taken for granted. This would not pass muster even for a set of audited accounts; GERS relies far too much on “surveys”, and a plethora of ‘estimates’ (each one dependent on statistical analysis that takes us further and further from the sources on which they rely), rather than real data. The different methodologies used for different sources of the ‘information’ provided is fraught with dangers in their application, their comparability, and their efficacy. The whole creaky edifice is quite extraordinary in its inadequacy. It is not a ‘representation’; it is a creation, an imaginative speculation resting too heavily on statistical reinforcement of very limited actual data, to give it some shaky standing. Perhaps major corporates like BP and Amazon would appreciate the indulgence and opportunity to provide their consolidated P&L and balance sheet, based on ‘surveys’ of this kind and a similar level of bland generalised approximation. It would certainly be cheap and easy to produce, but it would be rank guff and their informed public would never accept it.
Let me be clear. I have no idea what the Scottish ‘deficit’ may or may not be, that is not my point; but GERS is inadequate. I am not an apologist for the SNP so please do not suggest to me that the SNP Government effectively sanctions GERS: that is entirely their problem, not mine.
John
Brilliant!
You’ll be accused of bullying next
This lot do that (except I’m now banning them for their co-ordinated harassment)
But I loved it
Thank you
Richard