politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Ex-LAB MP, Nick Palmer, looks at what the party might do

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Jessop, cheers.

I'll likely try to follow F1 still when it becomes entirely Sky, but it's possible I'll stop or shift my attention to some other motorsport.

MarkHopkins said:

Charles said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Charles said:

JackW said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. W, moaning is not the Morris Dancer way.

When one feels a bit irked, one simply casts one's mind back to a 250/1 winner one recently tipped, and all is well.

Every dog has his day .... woof woof ....

Meanwhile ....

News reaches me that Charlie Falconer has decided to resign once Michael Gove finishes his launch speech or whenever malcolmg praises the Scottish Tories, whichever is the sooner ....

Tricky call ....

By the way what is this meme about Charlie? I've been too busy to follow all the news

We are awaiting news of his resignation. Long overdue...

Is that all?

I'd assumed he'd done something silly like resigned from one of his jobs but not the other

Yeah but, "xMP" is quicker to write.

Indigo said:

rcs1000 said:

I'm struggling with the outrage here, guys.

Because it's the first step towards a pan-EU Inland Revenue service, and pan-EU taxation.

Scott_P said:

@MichaelLCrick: Andrea Leadsom has been an MP 6 years; junior minister 2 years. She'd be least politically experienced PM since William Pitt the Younger

No problem

She nailed her colours to the mast, then realised the error of her ways and began a journey to idealogical purity.

What else does a PM need?

David_Evershed said:

Scott_P said:

@MichaelLCrick: Andrea Leadsom has been an MP 6 years; junior minister 2 years. She'd be least politically experienced PM since William Pitt the Younger

No problem

She nailed her colours to the mast, then realised the error of her ways and began a journey to idealogical purity.

What else does a PM need?

Was Blair a minister of any kind before he became PM? I think not.

So Leadsom would be the least experienced since Blair.

Indigo said:

JosiasJessop said:

rural_voter said:

JosiasJessop said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

John_M said:

Brexit? A mere trifle. A far more serious danger is almost upon us. Apparently The Great British Bake Off is exiting the BBC. The sky is falling!

Surely Bake Off's transfer to ITV is official government policy as laid down by Culture Secretary and Gove-backer, John Whittingdale?

Whiitingdale just saved the BBC for at least a decade by changing the rules wrt watching via the Internet and iPlayer.

Perhaps some thanks should be in order, rather than the stupidity you wrote.

How the BBC will collect £100+ per year from mobile phone users puzzles me, unless they hire GCHQ. It only seems viable in the internet age if it's funded from general taxation, which can't easily be evaded (several countries seem to do this). BBC3 has a Youtube channel; do we now have to buy a licence to watch Youtube?!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-35708623

It's a mess, and note I said they saved it for a decade or more, not forever.

The BBC was formed on the cutting edge of technology (*). It's technology is keeping up somewhat with the cutting edge; it's management and particularly its income stream is not.

If the BBC was sensible they would have been addressing this for the previous round of negotiations, not this one. Instead they put their fingers in their ears, and have only in the ;ast year or two started talking about the elephant in the room.

A move to general taxation would drastically alter the relationship between the BBC and the public.

(*) And has some great techies.

They are still dreaming. People use iplayer because its free. If iplayer starts to cost, the vast majority of people will move to a less legal free source. Most youngsters these days seem to feel that all content should be free and look aghast if you suggest they pay for it, not sure how they expect the content creator to pay their mortgage but there you go - iplayers loss will be bit torrents gain.

rcs1000 said:

Presumably a pan-European (or pan-World) tax number would simply work in exactly the same way IBAN works for inter-bank transfers. (Did you know that your bank account has a unique EU-reference? Or, more specifically, a unique world reference.)

So, everyone would have their own country tax code. And then there'd be a two or three digit country code in front of it. We could even use ISO dialling codes.

My EU tax code would therefore be something like: 44JD223134565. Or, indeed, my unique world tax code.

I'm struggling with the outrage here, guys.

JosiasJessop said:

Indigo said:

JosiasJessop said:

rural_voter said:

JosiasJessop said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

John_M said:

Brexit? A mere trifle. A far more serious danger is almost upon us. Apparently The Great British Bake Off is exiting the BBC. The sky is falling!

Surely Bake Off's transfer to ITV is official government policy as laid down by Culture Secretary and Gove-backer, John Whittingdale?

Whiitingdale just saved the BBC for at least a decade by changing the rules wrt watching via the Internet and iPlayer.

Perhaps some thanks should be in order, rather than the stupidity you wrote.

How the BBC will collect £100+ per year from mobile phone users puzzles me, unless they hire GCHQ. It only seems viable in the internet age if it's funded from general taxation, which can't easily be evaded (several countries seem to do this). BBC3 has a Youtube channel; do we now have to buy a licence to watch Youtube?!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-35708623

It's a mess, and note I said they saved it for a decade or more, not forever.

The BBC was formed on the cutting edge of technology (*). It's technology is keeping up somewhat with the cutting edge; it's management and particularly its income stream is not.

If the BBC was sensible they would have been addressing this for the previous round of negotiations, not this one. Instead they put their fingers in their ears, and have only in the ;ast year or two started talking about the elephant in the room.

A move to general taxation would drastically alter the relationship between the BBC and the public.

(*) And has some great techies.

They are still dreaming. People use iplayer because its free. If iplayer starts to cost, the vast majority of people will move to a less legal free source. Most youngsters these days seem to feel that all content should be free and look aghast if you suggest they pay for it, not sure how they expect the content creator to pay their mortgage but there you go - iplayers loss will be bit torrents gain.

Well, yes. Enforcement is a massive issue now that transmission is over a multitude of mechanisms rather than just RF.

Which is why the BBC want to move towards a general taxation model. And why, if it applies to the BBC alone, it should be resisted.

Indigo said:

JosiasJessop said:

rural_voter said:

JosiasJessop said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

John_M said:

Brexit? A mere trifle. A far more serious danger is almost upon us. Apparently The Great British Bake Off is exiting the BBC. The sky is falling!

Surely Bake Off's transfer to ITV is official government policy as laid down by Culture Secretary and Gove-backer, John Whittingdale?

Whiitingdale just saved the BBC for at least a decade by changing the rules wrt watching via the Internet and iPlayer.

Perhaps some thanks should be in order, rather than the stupidity you wrote.

How the BBC will collect £100+ per year from mobile phone users puzzles me, unless they hire GCHQ. It only seems viable in the internet age if it's funded from general taxation, which can't easily be evaded (several countries seem to do this). BBC3 has a Youtube channel; do we now have to buy a licence to watch Youtube?!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-35708623

It's a mess, and note I said they saved it for a decade or more, not forever.

The BBC was formed on the cutting edge of technology (*). It's technology is keeping up somewhat with the cutting edge; it's management and particularly its income stream is not.

If the BBC was sensible they would have been addressing this for the previous round of negotiations, not this one. Instead they put their fingers in their ears, and have only in the ;ast year or two started talking about the elephant in the room.

A move to general taxation would drastically alter the relationship between the BBC and the public.

(*) And has some great techies.

They are still dreaming. People use iplayer because its free. If iplayer starts to cost, the vast majority of people will move to a less legal free source. Most youngsters these days seem to feel that all content should be free and look aghast if you suggest they pay for it, not sure how they expect the content creator to pay their mortgage but there you go - iplayers loss will be bit torrents gain.

malcolmg said:

RobD said:

Lowlander said:

MTimT said:

On an independent Scotland's gross contributions to the EU, here is what I have dug up.

'Experimental' GNI figures for 2010 indicate a Scottish GNI in the range of GBP120 billion (no North Sea gas and oil) to just under GBP 140 billion (geographic share of oil and gas income, prior to crash in oil prices). That gives a range of GNI contributions of GBP 840-1080 million. Figures from the Scottish National Accounts Project at http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0043/00438352.pdf

Scottish VAT receipts 2014-2015 GBP9.134 billion, so an EU contribution of GBP 275 million.
(page 17 of https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/464199/HMRC_disaggregated_receipts_-_Methodology_Note.pdf)

This gives total gross Scottish EU annual payments of GBP 1.175-1.355 billion

For the cohesion funds, the EU process is that, in its 7-year budget "More than half of the budget – €182.2 billion – has been set aside for less developed regions, which have a GDP of less than 75 % of the EU-27 average. €35 billion has been allocated to transition regions, which have a GDP of between 75 % and 90 % of the EU average, and €54 billion to more developed regions which a GDP of more than 90 % of the EU average."

To calculate Scotland's expected receipts, we'd have to know how Scotland's regions are drawn and where each lies in terms of GDP per capita ratio to EU average GDP per capita.

EU disbursements to the UK under CAP (if I am reading the tables correctly) was around Euro 7 billion in 2014, so Scotland's share of that was probably around GBP 500 million.

I can't calculate a definitive number, as I can't estimate what Scotland would get under the Cohesion Funds. But all told, my best guess is that an independent Scotland would be a modest, not major, net contributor to the EU budget.

So we're talking about a net contribution óf £10m a week,

Works well for the strapline.

Being in the UK costs Scotland £200m a week.

Being in the EU will cost Scotland £10m a week.

Let's use the difference to fund our NHS.

Vote Yes in May 2017

I thought Scotland was a net beneficiary thanks to Barnet?

Rob, when will you come into the real world and stop believing the Mail and Express

JosiasJessop said:

David_Evershed said:

Scott_P said:

@MichaelLCrick: Andrea Leadsom has been an MP 6 years; junior minister 2 years. She'd be least politically experienced PM since William Pitt the Younger

No problem

She nailed her colours to the mast, then realised the error of her ways and began a journey to idealogical purity.

What else does a PM need?

Was Blair a minister of any kind before he became PM? I think not.

So Leadsom would be the least experienced since Blair.

He had a rich shadow portfolio though: trade, energy, employment and home.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Blair

It's a bit unfair comparing people who served in a party in government, against those whose party was out of government!

Edit: You've just made me defend Blair. Damn you!

RobD said:

Lowlander said:

MTimT said:

On an independent Scotland's gross contributions to the EU, here is what I have dug up.

'Experimental' GNI figures for 2010 indicate a Scottish GNI in the range of GBP120 billion (no North Sea gas and oil) to just under GBP 140 billion (geographic share of oil and gas income, prior to crash in oil prices). That gives a range of GNI contributions of GBP 840-1080 million. Figures from the Scottish National Accounts Project at http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0043/00438352.pdf

Scottish VAT receipts 2014-2015 GBP9.134 billion, so an EU contribution of GBP 275 million.
(page 17 of https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/464199/HMRC_disaggregated_receipts_-_Methodology_Note.pdf)

This gives total gross Scottish EU annual payments of GBP 1.175-1.355 billion

For the cohesion funds, the EU process is that, in its 7-year budget "More than half of the budget – €182.2 billion – has been set aside for less developed regions, which have a GDP of less than 75 % of the EU-27 average. €35 billion has been allocated to transition regions, which have a GDP of between 75 % and 90 % of the EU average, and €54 billion to more developed regions which a GDP of more than 90 % of the EU average."

To calculate Scotland's expected receipts, we'd have to know how Scotland's regions are drawn and where each lies in terms of GDP per capita ratio to EU average GDP per capita.

EU disbursements to the UK under CAP (if I am reading the tables correctly) was around Euro 7 billion in 2014, so Scotland's share of that was probably around GBP 500 million.

I can't calculate a definitive number, as I can't estimate what Scotland would get under the Cohesion Funds. But all told, my best guess is that an independent Scotland would be a modest, not major, net contributor to the EU budget.

So we're talking about a net contribution óf £10m a week,

Works well for the strapline.

Being in the UK costs Scotland £200m a week.

Being in the EU will cost Scotland £10m a week.

Let's use the difference to fund our NHS.

Vote Yes in May 2017

I thought Scotland was a net beneficiary thanks to Barnet?

malcolmg said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

HaroldO said:

RobD said:

Lowlander said:

MTimT said:

On an independent Scotland's gross contributions to the EU, here is what I have dug up.

'Experimental' GNI figures for 2010 indicate a Scottish GNI in the range of GBP120 billion (no North Sea gas and oil) to just under GBP 140 billion (geographic share of oil and gas income, prior to crash in oil prices). That gives a range of GNI contributions of GBP 840-1080 million. Figures from the Scottish National Accounts Project at http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0043/00438352.pdf

Scottish VAT receipts 2014-2015 GBP9.134 billion, so an EU contribution of GBP 275 million.
(page 17 of https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/464199/HMRC_disaggregated_receipts_-_Methodology_Note.pdf)

This gives total gross Scottish EU annual payments of GBP 1.175-1.355 billion

For the cohesion funds, the EU process is that, in its 7-year budget "More than half of the budget – €182.2 billion – has been set aside for less developed regions, which have a GDP of less than 75 % of the EU-27 average. €35 billion has been allocated to transition regions, which have a GDP of between 75 % and 90 % of

So we're talking about a net contribution óf £10m a week,

Works well for the strapline.

Being in the UK costs Scotland £200m a week.

Being in the EU will cost Scotland £10m a week.

Let's use the difference to fund our NHS.

Vote Yes in May 2017

I thought Scotland was a net beneficiary thanks to Barnet?

I assumed it was a joke....

How about a deal with Scotland?
Yes you can have a second referendum but to make sure that this is an even playing field free of UK Govt bribes, it will mean an end to the Barnet formula win or lose, yes or no. Thus your scottish voters are no longer bribed to vote to stay in the UK. You can then vote to be independent, get the Euro, slash govt spending to meet EU rules and pay their EU charges. Also lose control of fishing to the EU etc etc...
Seems like a good deal to me. A new Pledge.

Ha Ha Ha , your village is searching for you

Omnium said:

malcolmg said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

HaroldO said:

RobD said:

Lowlander said:

MTimT said:

On an independent Scotland's gross contributions to the EU, here is what I have dug up.

'Experimental' GNI figures for 2010 indicate a Scottish GNI in the range of GBP120 billion (no North Sea gas and oil) to just under GBP 140 billion (geographic share of oil and gas income, prior to crash in oil prices). That gives a range of GNI contributions of GBP 840-1080 million. Figures from the Scottish National Accounts Project at http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0043/00438352.pdf

Scottish VAT receipts 2014-2015 GBP9.134 billion, so an EU contribution of GBP 275 million.
(page 17 of https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/464199/HMRC_disaggregated_receipts_-_Methodology_Note.pdf)

This gives total gross Scottish EU annual payments of GBP 1.175-1.355 billion

For the cohesion funds, the EU process is that, in its 7-year budget "More than half of the budget – €182.2 billion – has been set aside for less developed regions, which have a GDP of less than 75 % of the EU-27 average. €35 billion has been allocated to transition regions, which have a GDP of between 75 % and 90 % of

So we're talking about a net contribution óf £10m a week,

Works well for the strapline.

Being in the UK costs Scotland £200m a week.

Being in the EU will cost Scotland £10m a week.

Let's use the difference to fund our NHS.

Vote Yes in May 2017

I thought Scotland was a net beneficiary thanks to Barnet?

I assumed it was a joke....

How about a deal with Scotland?
Yes you can have a second referendum but to make sure that this is an even playing field free of UK Govt bribes, it will mean an end to the Barnet formula win or lose, yes or no. Thus your scottish voters are no longer bribed to vote to stay in the UK. You can then vote to be independent, get the Euro, slash govt spending to meet EU rules and pay their EU charges. Also lose control of fishing to the EU etc etc...
Seems like a good deal to me. A new Pledge.

Ha Ha Ha , your village is searching for you

Why are you so damned rude?

Every other comment you post is belittling someone or other.

HaroldO said:

malcolmg said:

RobD said:

Lowlander said:

MTimT said:

On an independent Scotland's gross contributions to the EU, here is what I have dug up.

'Experimental' GNI figures for 2010 indicate a Scottish GNI in the range of GBP120 billion (no North Sea gas and oil) to just under GBP 140 billion (geographic share of oil and gas income, prior to crash in oil prices). That gives a range of GNI contributions of GBP 840-1080 million. Figures from the Scottish National Accounts Project at http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0043/00438352.pdf

Scottish VAT receipts 2014-2015 GBP9.134 billion, so an EU contribution of GBP 275 million.
(page 17 of https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/464199/HMRC_disaggregated_receipts_-_Methodology_Note.pdf)

I can't calculate a definitive number, as I can't estimate what Scotland would get under the Cohesion Funds. But all told, my best guess is that an independent Scotland would be a modest, not major, net contributor to the EU budget.

So we're talking about a net contribution óf £10m a week,

Works well for the strapline.

Being in the UK costs Scotland £200m a week.

Being in the EU will cost Scotland £10m a week.

Let's use the difference to fund our NHS.

Vote Yes in May 2017

I thought Scotland was a net beneficiary thanks to Barnet?

Rob, when will you come into the real world and stop believing the Mail and Express

And Scottish government figures, and other ridiculous sources such as that. Piffle against the might of the SNP and their promises, well sourced figures are just talking us dooooooon!

Omnium said:

malcolmg said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

HaroldO said:

RobD said:

Lowlander said:

MTimT said:

On an independent Scotland's gross contributions to the EU, here is what I have dug up.

'Experimental' GNI figures for 2010 indicate a Scottish GNI in the range of GBP120 billion (no North Sea gas and oil) to just under GBP 140 billion (geographic share of oil and gas income, prior to crash in oil prices). That gives a range of GNI contributions of GBP 840-1080 million. Figures from the Scottish National Accounts Project at http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0043/00438352.pdf

Scottish VAT receipts 2014-2015 GBP9.134 billion, so an EU contribution of GBP 275 million.
(page 17 of https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/464199/HMRC_disaggregated_receipts_-_Methodology_Note.pdf)

This gives total gross Scottish EU annual payments of GBP 1.175-1.355 billion

For the cohesion funds, the EU process is that, in its 7-year budget "More than half of the budget – €182.2 billion – has been set aside for less developed regions, which have a GDP of less than 75 % of the EU-27 average. €35 billion has been allocated to transition regions, which have a GDP of between 75 % and 90 % of

So we're talking about a net contribution óf £10m a week,

Works well for the strapline.

Being in the UK costs Scotland £200m a week.

Being in the EU will cost Scotland £10m a week.

Let's use the difference to fund our NHS.

Vote Yes in May 2017

I thought Scotland was a net beneficiary thanks to Barnet?

I assumed it was a joke....

How about a deal with Scotland?
Yes you can have a second referendum but to make sure that this is an even playing field free of UK Govt bribes, it will mean an end to the Barnet formula win or lose, yes or no. Thus your scottish voters are no longer bribed to vote to stay in the UK. You can then vote to be independent, get the Euro, slash govt spending to meet EU rules and pay their EU charges. Also lose control of fishing to the EU etc etc...
Seems like a good deal to me. A new Pledge.

Ha Ha Ha , your village is searching for you

Why are you so damned rude?

Every other comment you post is belittling someone or other.

HaroldO said:

Omnium said:

malcolmg said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

HaroldO said:

RobD said:

Lowlander said:

MTimT said:

On an independent Scotland's gross contributions to the EU, here is what I have dug up.

'Experimental' GNI figures for 2010 indicate a Scottish GNI in the range of GBP120 billion (no North Sea gas and oil) to just under GBP 140 billion (geographic share of oil and gas income, prior to crash in oil prices). That gives a range of GNI contributions of GBP 840-1080 million. Figures from the Scottish National Accounts Project at http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0043/00438352.pdf

Scottish VAT receipts 2014-2015 GBP9.134 billion, so an EU contribution of GBP 275 million.
(page 17 of https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/464199/HMRC_disaggregated_receipts_-_Methodology_Note.pdf)

This gives total gross Scottish EU annual payments of GBP 1.175-1.355 billion

For the cohesion funds, the EU process is that, in its 7-year budget "More than half of the budget – €182.2 billion – has been set aside for less developed regions, which have a GDP of less than 75 % of the EU-27 average. €35 billion has been allocated to transition regions, which have a GDP of between 75 % and 90 % of

So we're talking about a net contribution óf £10m a week,

Works well for the strapline.

Being in the UK costs Scotland £200m a week.

Being in the EU will cost Scotland £10m a week.

Let's use the difference to fund our NHS.

Vote Yes in May 2017

I thought Scotland was a net beneficiary thanks to Barnet?

I assumed it was a joke....

How about a deal with Scotland?
Yes you can have a second referendum but to make sure that this is an even playing field free of UK Govt bribes, it will mean an end to the Barnet formula win or lose, yes or no. Thus your scottish voters are no longer bribed to vote to stay in the UK. You can then vote to be independent, get the Euro, slash govt spending to meet EU rules and pay their EU charges. Also lose control of fishing to the EU etc etc...
Seems like a good deal to me. A new Pledge.

Ha Ha Ha , your village is searching for you

Why are you so damned rude?

Every other comment you post is belittling someone or other.

He is wrong, and he knows it. Where do you go from there but to be rude?

malcolmg said:

HaroldO said:

Omnium said:

malcolmg said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

HaroldO said:

RobD said:

Lowlander said:

MTimT said:

On an independent Scotland's gross contributions to the EU, here is what I have dug up.

'Experimental' GNI figures for 2010 indicate a Scottish GNI in the range of GBP120 billion (no North Sea gas and oil) to just under GBP 140 billion (geographic share of oil and gas income, prior to crash in oil prices). That gives a range of GNI contributions of GBP 840-1080 million. Figures from the Scottish National Accounts Project at http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0043/00438352.pdf

Scottish VAT receipts 2014-2015 GBP9.134 billion, so an EU contribution of GBP 275 million.
(page 17 of https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/464199/HMRC_disaggregated_receipts_-_Methodology_Note.pdf)

This gives total gross Scottish EU annual payments of GBP 1.175-1.355 billion

For the cohesion funds, the EU process is that, in its 7-year budget "More than half of the budget – €182.2 billion – has been set aside for less developed regions, which have a GDP of less than 75 % of the EU-27 average. €35 billion has been allocated to transition regions, which have a GDP of between 75 % and 90 % of

So we're talking about a net contribution óf £10m a week,

Works well for the strapline.

Being in the UK costs Scotland £200m a week.

Being in the EU will cost Scotland £10m a week.

Let's use the difference to fund our NHS.

Vote Yes in May 2017

I thought Scotland was a net beneficiary thanks to Barnet?

I assumed it was a joke....

How about a deal with Scotland?
Yes you can have a second referendum but to make sure that this is an even playing field free of UK Govt bribes, it will mean an end to the Barnet formula win or lose, yes or no. Thus your scottish voters are no longer bribed to vote to stay in the UK. You can then vote to be independent, get the Euro, slash govt spending to meet EU rules and pay their EU charges. Also lose control of fishing to the EU etc etc...
Seems like a good deal to me. A new Pledge.

Ha Ha Ha , your village is searching for you

Why are you so damned rude?

Every other comment you post is belittling someone or other.

He is wrong, and he knows it. Where do you go from there but to be rude?

another sourpuss lacking any sense of fun, bet you boys worry about your pigtails falling out

foxinsoxuk said:

John_M said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Indigo said:

rcs1000 said:

I'm struggling with the outrage here, guys.

Because it's the first step towards a pan-EU Inland Revenue service, and pan-EU taxation.

What does it matter? We are Leaving.

Or are we? Dun. Dun. Dun.

Well so far we seem not to be, what with all the Leavers suddenly becoming converts to the EEA with freedom of movement etc

Can't see the point myself...

malcolmg said:

Omnium said:

malcolmg said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

HaroldO said:

RobD said:

Lowlander said:

MTimT said:

On an independent Scotland's gross contributions to the EU, here is what I have dug up.

'Experimental' GNI figures for 2010 indicate a Scottish GNI in the range of GBP120 billion (no North Sea gas and oil) to just under GBP 140 billion (geographic share of oil and gas income, prior to crash in oil prices). That gives a range of GNI contributions of GBP 840-1080 million. Figures from the Scottish National Accounts Project at http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0043/00438352.pdf

Scottish VAT receipts 2014-2015 GBP9.134 billion, so an EU contribution of GBP 275 million.
(page 17 of https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/464199/HMRC_disaggregated_receipts_-_Methodology_Note.pdf)

This gives total gross Scottish EU annual payments of GBP 1.175-1.355 billion

For the cohesion funds, the EU process is that, in its 7-year budget "More than half of the budget – €182.2 billion – has been set aside for less developed regions, which have a GDP of less than 75 % of the EU-27 average. €35 billion has been allocated to transition regions, which have a GDP of between 75 % and 90 % of

So we're talking about a net contribution óf £10m a week,

Works well for the strapline.

Being in the UK costs Scotland £200m a week.

Being in the EU will cost Scotland £10m a week.

Let's use the difference to fund our NHS.

Vote Yes in May 2017

I thought Scotland was a net beneficiary thanks to Barnet?

I assumed it was a joke....

How about a deal with Scotland?
Yes you can have a second referendum but to make sure that this is an even playing field free of UK Govt bribes, it will mean an end to the Barnet formula win or lose, yes or no. Thus your scottish voters are no longer bribed to vote to stay in the UK. You can then vote to be independent, get the Euro, slash govt spending to meet EU rules and pay their EU charges. Also lose control of fishing to the EU etc etc...
Seems like a good deal to me. A new Pledge.

Ha Ha Ha , your village is searching for you

Why are you so damned rude?

Every other comment you post is belittling someone or other.

Jog on and get a sense of humour you saddo

Omnium said:

malcolmg said:

Omnium said:

malcolmg said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

HaroldO said:

RobD said:

Lowlander said:

MTimT said:

On an independent Scotland's gross contributions to the EU, here is what I have dug up.

'Experimental' GNI figures for 2010 indicate a Scottish GNI in the range of GBP120 billion (no North Sea gas and oil) to just under GBP 140 billion (geographic share of oil and gas income, prior to crash in oil prices). That gives a range of GNI contributions of GBP 840-1080 million. Figures from the Scottish National Accounts Project at http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0043/00438352.pdf

Scottish VAT receipts 2014-2015 GBP9.134 billion, so an EU contribution of GBP 275 million.
(page 17 of https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/464199/HMRC_disaggregated_receipts_-_Methodology_Note.pdf)

This gives total gross Scottish EU annual payments of GBP 1.175-1.355 billion

For the cohesion funds, the EU process is that, in its 7-year budget "More than half of the budget – €182.2 billion – has been set aside for less developed regions, which have a GDP of less than 75 % of the EU-27 average. €35 billion has been allocated to transition regions, which have a GDP of between 75 % and 90 % of

So we're talking about a net contribution óf £10m a week,

Works well for the strapline.

Being in the UK costs Scotland £200m a week.

Being in the EU will cost Scotland £10m a week.

Let's use the difference to fund our NHS.

Vote Yes in May 2017

I thought Scotland was a net beneficiary thanks to Barnet?

I assumed it was a joke....

How about a deal with Scotland?
Yes you can have a second referendum but to make sure that this is an even playing field free of UK Govt bribes, it will mean an end to the Barnet formula win or lose, yes or no. Thus your scottish voters are no longer bribed to vote to stay in the UK. You can then vote to be independent, get the Euro, slash govt spending to meet EU rules and pay their EU charges. Also lose control of fishing to the EU etc etc...
Seems like a good deal to me. A new Pledge.

Ha Ha Ha , your village is searching for you

Why are you so damned rude?

Every other comment you post is belittling someone or other.

Jog on and get a sense of humour you saddo

Oh, sorry yes, my fault entirely. I hadn't realised I was dealing with such an incredibly wise man. I humbly beg your forgiveness.

John_M said:

HaroldO said:

malcolmg said:

RobD said:

Lowlander said:

MTimT said:

On an independent Scotland's gross contributions to the EU, here is what I have dug up.

'Experimental' GNI figures for 2010 indicate a Scottish GNI in the range of GBP120 billion (no North Sea gas and oil) to just under GBP 140 billion (geographic share of oil and gas income, prior to crash in oil prices). That gives a range of GNI contributions of GBP 840-1080 million. Figures from the Scottish National Accounts Project at http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0043/00438352.pdf

Scottish VAT receipts 2014-2015 GBP9.134 billion, so an EU contribution of GBP 275 million.
(page 17 of https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/464199/HMRC_disaggregated_receipts_-_Methodology_Note.pdf)

I can't calculate a definitive number, as I can't estimate what Scotland would get under the Cohesion Funds. But all told, my best guess is that an independent Scotland would be a modest, not major, net contributor to the EU budget.

So we're talking about a net contribution óf £10m a week,

Works well for the strapline.

Being in the UK costs Scotland £200m a week.

Being in the EU will cost Scotland £10m a week.

Let's use the difference to fund our NHS.

Vote Yes in May 2017

I thought Scotland was a net beneficiary thanks to Barnet?

Rob, when will you come into the real world and stop believing the Mail and Express

And Scottish government figures, and other ridiculous sources such as that. Piffle against the might of the SNP and their promises, well sourced figures are just talking us dooooooon!

We cannot have it both ways. There's no doubt that Brexit is daft on purely economic grounds - there's a price to be paid. That price will continue for several years.

Indigo said:

stjohn said:

Indigo. Are you still optimistic for the UK's economic prospects in the short, medium and long term? Also what arrangement are you hoping the UK achieve with Europe post Brexit?

Until recently I had great faith in the British people to weather a short term downturn and make the best of the new world, making deals with countries outside the EU for a neutral medium term and improved long term. However given the amount of crying, naysaying and attempts to cling on to nurse I am now not quite so sure, the stiff upper lip and bulldog spirit appear to be long gone.

If I had any confidence that the people would be offered another look at the issue in a decade I could live with the EEA/EFTA approach for now and let people see how they feel about the immigration issue later on. My main concern is that politicians having been given a massive scare are not going to feel inclined to ask the people what they think in future, and so the question is not going to get asked.

I fear there will be increasing civil unrest in the medium term if we stay with Freedom of Movement because frankly politicians are not going to make the changes required to make it work, vis contributory benefits systems, and proper provision on health and schooling. The former because the left and wishywashy Tories will scream blue murder at the merest suggestion, and the later because the British public will never accept the tax rises required to fund it.

malcolmg said:

John_M said:

HaroldO said:

malcolmg said:

RobD said:

Lowlander said:

MTimT said:

On an independent Scotland's gross contributions to the EU, here is what I have dug up.



I can't calculate a definitive number, as I can't estimate what Scotland would get under the Cohesion Funds. But all told, my best guess is that an independent Scotland would be a modest, not major, net contributor to the EU budget.

So we're talking about a net contribution óf £10m a week,

Works well for the strapline.

Being in the UK costs Scotland £200m a week.

Being in the EU will cost Scotland £10m a week.

Let's use the difference to fund our NHS.

Vote Yes in May 2017

I thought Scotland was a net beneficiary thanks to Barnet?

Rob, when will you come into the real world and stop believing the Mail and Express

And Scottish government figures, and other ridiculous sources such as that. Piffle against the might of the SNP and their promises, well sourced figures are just talking us dooooooon!

We cannot have it both ways. There's no doubt that Brexit is daft on purely economic grounds - there's a price to be paid. That price will continue for several years.

Having made that decision, we can't now just turn on the Scots and tell them that they're committing economic suicide - that's just rerunning the old too puir, too wee, too daft crap that people have peddled for years.

Scotland should have a second Sindy referendum. I do think it would be wise to wait until we understand the UK's exit strategy. If it's going to be pure WTO, for example, I'd expect the Nationalists to win handily.

Well said John, amazing how they are happy for UK to vote out of EU but don not want to give Scotland the opportunity to decide on their own whether they agree, especially given the result in Scotland.

Indigo said:

stjohn said:

Indigo. Are you still optimistic for the UK's economic prospects in the short, medium and long term? Also what arrangement are you hoping the UK achieve with Europe post Brexit?

Until recently I had great faith in the British people to weather a short term downturn and make the best of the new world, making deals with countries outside the EU for a neutral medium term and improved long term. However given the amount of crying, naysaying and attempts to cling on to nurse I am now not quite so sure, the stiff upper lip and bulldog spirit appear to be long gone.

If I had any confidence that the people would be offered another look at the issue in a decade I could live with the EEA/EFTA approach for now and let people see how they feel about the immigration issue later on. My main concern is that politicians having been given a massive scare are not going to feel inclined to ask the people what they think in future, and so the question is not going to get asked.

I fear there will be increasing civil unrest in the medium term if we stay with Freedom of Movement because frankly politicians are not going to make the changes required to make it work, vis contributory benefits systems, and proper provision on health and schooling. The former because the left and wishywashy Tories will scream blue murder at the merest suggestion, and the later because the British public will never accept the tax rises required to fund it.

John_M said:

Thanks Malcolm. It really isn't just about economics. None of the Brexit models I've seen forecast the UK's GDP will fall - just that the trend growth rate drops by around 0.4%. p.a.

However, if you imagine a 25% absolute decline* (in constant currency), that would put the UK back to 1999, which I don't recall being a blasted, tortured wasteland of famine and despair.

The same concept applies to Scotland. I think an independent Scotland would have a terribly tough time economically in the short term. It couldn't meet the Euro criteria immediately, and I can't see the EU bending its rules again (*cough* Greece). But if that's what people want, there's no reason why it couldn't work in the medium term.

*I'm not being serious here, so pedants avaunt .

MattW said:

Nick

Thanks for the piece.

MikeL said:

Does anyone know the timetable for the Con party sending ballot papers out to its members?

Assuming the MPs voting goes through 3 rounds - ie nobody withdraws - the final MPs ballot will be on Tuesday 12 July.

If the poll in The Sun is remotely accurate Leadsom needs there to be a delay of at least a few weeks whilst campaigning starts, she builds her profile and ideally she would probably also need a big high profile TV debate vs May.

However if ballot papers go out quickly after 12 July she is surely going to have almost no chance at all - as we know that most postal ballots get returned quickly and she just won't have had anything like enough of a chance to make an impression with members, many of whom will barely even know who she is.

JackW said:

MattW said:

Nick

Thanks for the piece.

Cod ....

rcs1000 said:

Indigo said:

stjohn said:

Indigo. Are you still optimistic for the UK's economic prospects in the short, medium and long term? Also what arrangement are you hoping the UK achieve with Europe post Brexit?

Until recently I had great faith in the British people to weather a short term downturn and make the best of the new world, making deals with countries outside the EU for a neutral medium term and improved long term. However given the amount of crying, naysaying and attempts to cling on to nurse I am now not quite so sure, the stiff upper lip and bulldog spirit appear to be long gone.

If I had any confidence that the people would be offered another look at the issue in a decade I could live with the EEA/EFTA approach for now and let people see how they feel about the immigration issue later on. My main concern is that politicians having been given a massive scare are not going to feel inclined to ask the people what they think in future, and so the question is not going to get asked.

I fear there will be increasing civil unrest in the medium term if we stay with Freedom of Movement because frankly politicians are not going to make the changes required to make it work, vis contributory benefits systems, and proper provision on health and schooling. The former because the left and wishywashy Tories will scream blue murder at the merest suggestion, and the later because the British public will never accept the tax rises required to fund it.

The thing is, there has been no planning for post a Leave vote by anyone.

There is no consensus about what Leave means.

There was no realisation that a long period of limbo would have economic consequences.

Before the vote, I repeatedly stated that the choice should be between two concrete proposals. I stated that - failing that - there should be a supplementary question on the ballot paper about the UK's future relationship with the EU.

Without this, anyone claiming to know the will of the British people is lying. No-one knows. And the longer we sit there, with future trade relationships unknown the longer businesses will sit on their hands.

Leaving the EU could be achieved with limited near-term economic consequences. Instead we seem to be going for maximum economic damage.

rcs1000 said:

chestnut said:

EU to be weaker over the next 5-10 years without the UK

https://next.ft.com/content/404487c0-411e-11e6-9b66-0712b3873ae1

Businesses, across Europe (and the world), want a speedy resolution to this.

rcs1000 said:

Indigo said:

rcs1000 said:

Leaving the EU could be achieved with limited near-term economic consequences. Instead we seem to be going for maximum economic damage.

Which is an act of criminal negligence by the current government, who should have outlined what leave meant and are expected to have plans for all eventualities. How is it we have detailed plans for accidents in nuclear power stations with chances down in the one in tens of millions, but we don't have even the most basic plan for what we do after a leave result in a referendum which forecasts never put below about a 20% likelihood.

Yes, but if they'd claimed Leave meant EFTA/EEA, then a huge number of people would have been up in arms about not being offered an option that restricted immigration.

Charles said:

rcs1000 said:

Indigo said:

stjohn said:

Until recently I had great faith in the British people to weather a short term downturn and make the best of the new world, making deals with countries outside the EU for a neutral medium term and improved long term. However given the amount of crying, naysaying and attempts to cling on to nurse I am now not quite so sure, the stiff upper lip and bulldog spirit appear to be long gone.

If I had any confidence that the people would be offered another look at the issue in a decade I could live with the EEA/EFTA approach for now and let people see how they feel about the immigration issue later on. My main concern is that politicians having been given a massive scare are not going to feel inclined to ask the people what they think in future, and so the question is not going to get asked.

I fear there will be increasing civil unrest in the medium term if we stay with Freedom of Movement because frankly politicians are not going to make the changes required to make it work, vis contributory benefits systems, and proper provision on health and schooling. The former because the left and wishywashy Tories will scream blue murder at the merest suggestion, and the later because the British public will never accept the tax rises required to fund it.

The thing is, there has been no planning for post a Leave vote by anyone.

There is no consensus about what Leave means.

There was no realisation that a long period of limbo would have economic consequences.

Before the vote, I repeatedly stated that the choice should be between two concrete proposals. I stated that - failing that - there should be a supplementary question on the ballot paper about the UK's future relationship with the EU.

Without this, anyone claiming to know the will of the British people is lying. No-one knows. And the longer we sit there, with future trade relationships unknown the longer businesses will sit on their hands.

Leaving the EU could be achieved with limited near-term economic consequences. Instead we seem to be going for maximum economic damage.

The think that has angered me most about Cameron is that he has genuinely done no contingency planning. It's utterly extraordinary and a complete dereliction of duty.

MikeL said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

MikeL said:

Does anyone know the timetable for the Con party sending ballot papers out to its members?

Assuming the MPs voting goes through 3 rounds - ie nobody withdraws - the final MPs ballot will be on Tuesday 12 July.

If the poll in The Sun is remotely accurate Leadsom needs there to be a delay of at least a few weeks whilst campaigning starts, she builds her profile and ideally she would probably also need a big high profile TV debate vs May.

However if ballot papers go out quickly after 12 July she is surely going to have almost no chance at all - as we know that most postal ballots get returned quickly and she just won't have had anything like enough of a chance to make an impression with members, many of whom will barely even know who she is.

If it this like last time, ballots should be sent out mid/last week of July.

IIRC the MPs stage ended mid October 2005, and I got my ballot papers second week of November

Thanks - on that basis I think it looks very difficult for her indeed.

HaroldO said:

malcolmg said:

I defy anyone to be able to really split out the economics in the UK, so much of our cash disappears into unknown buckets and is spent on Westminster follies who would know what the reality is. For sure if all the UK vanity projects were dumped we would be seriously better off than we are now deficit or not.

Here is one web site that does it well;

http://chokkablog.blogspot.co.uk/

I doubt you will even read it, but go ahead and have a try at opening your mind for once.
In one paragraph you make at least three wild claims with no actual basis to try and muddy the waters, after several hours of strawmanning people about "talking Scotland dooooooon!".
If you are the typical SNP voter it explains much.