The Dirty Independence Question

[LJS]

The idea that for 4 out of 5 Scotland has made a contribution is (for 4 of those years, anyway. WoS pretends that 20102-13 hasn't happened yet).

But whatever you're reading, it's feeding you bollocks. Revenues matter against expenditure, they mean fuck all by themselves.

I read & linked the beeb

Here it is again

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-28879267

[LJS]

Do you really want the facts, or do you want your prejudices to be confirmed?

Scotland's deficit is greater than UK's average - for all of 5 of the last 5 years.

In fact, for all of 19 years in the last 25 years.

These are irrefutable facts as presented by Alex himself in GERS.

(and GERS makes Scotland look financially better than the reality, too).

Could you clarify the attribution of oil revenues in these years?

[eFestivals]

There's an oil boom, yeah....?

A reminder of the oil situation for those who need it.

BTW, Alex's financial projection for iScotland not only includes 50% extra oil that Scotland will not extract, they also rely on an oil price of £113 a barrel.

Guess what the oil price is currently?

Guess which way the oil price is moving?

Guess which way the oil price is expected for go for the next 10+ years due to fracking and the massive middle-eastern NG fields coming online?

[eFestivals]

Dammit, i've done what I try hard not to do, and was wrong to say that Scotland had a greater deficit than the UK average for all of the last 5 years. My apologies.

However, Scotland running a deficit greater than the UK average for 19 of the last 25 years is true.

These are from Alex's own (fiddled) GERS numbers.

Scotland's finances - SURPLUS (+) AND DEFICIT (–) PER PERSON

including GEOGRAPHICAL share of oil revenues FOR BOTH Scotland and the rUK

in £

Notes: Years in which Scotland's budget balance was WORSE than the rUK's are shown in BOLD for ease of readinf

Adjusted for inflation (= in today's prices)

Year ... Scotland ... rUK

1980 ... +1,246 ... +1,065

1981 ... +3,145 ... –732

1982 ... +3,379 ... –868

1983 ... +3,202 ... –987

1984 ... +4,191 ... –1,083

1985 ... +3,907 ... –838

1986 ... +1,049 ... –493

1987 ... +1,008 ... –304

1988 ... +929 ... +194

1989 ... +201 ... +25

1990 ... –384 ... –190

1991 ... –949 ... –711

1992 ... –1,935 ... –1,377

1993 ... –1,963 ... –1,458

1994 ... –1,508 ... –1,225

1995 ... –1,036 ... –972

1996 ... –695 ... –739

1997 ... –324 ... –136

1998 ... –361 ... +159

1999 ... –327 ... +450

2000 ... +653 ... +996

2001 ... –199 ... –2

2002 ... –1,051 ... –552

2003 ... –1,496 ... –678

2004 ... –1,358 ... –849

2005 ... –569 ... –814

2006 ... –789 ... –658

2007 ... –923 ... –696

2008 ... –815 ... –1,900

2009 ... –3,052 ... –2,794

2010 ... –2,465 ... –2,494

2011 ... –1,507 ... –2,060

2012 ... –2,277 ... –1,889

Data: Scottish government's SNAP project.

edit: to bold the years where Scotland's deficit has been lesser than rUK.

Edited September 9, 2014 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

I read & linked the beeb

Here it is again

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-28879267

Yeah, I laughed at their maths last time you linked to that. It disagrees with what Alex himself states.

Here's another BBC article that actually listens to Alex's numbers.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-26541575

And here's Alex's numbers:-

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2014/03/7888

Can you reconcile what the article you link to says with Alex's numbers? nope.

Can you pretend that falling oil revenues will miraculously reverse and have greater income in the future? You already do.

[LJS]

you'll love this one Neil.

"Referendum: Study finds those with more info are more likely to vote yes"

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/07/scottish-independence-referendum-research-more-information-likely-vote-yes

[LJS]

Yeah, I laughed at their maths last time you linked to that. It disagrees with what Alex himself states.

Here's another BBC article that actually listens to Alex's numbers.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-26541575

And here's Alex's numbers:-

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2014/03/7888

Can you reconcile what the article you link to says with Alex's numbers? nope.

Can you pretend that falling oil revenues will miraculously reverse and have greater income in the future? You already do.

Thanks for the links which show Scotland had a higher deficit than rUK in 2012/13 which I am not disputing.

Not quite sure what the point of that was!

[eFestivals]

you'll love this one Neil.

"Referendum: Study finds those with more info are more likely to vote yes"

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/07/scottish-independence-referendum-research-more-information-likely-vote-yes

Are they accepting of the info tho, or do they do the same emu act as you?

I've no problem with people knowing what they're voting for. If Alex hadn't decided that the win was in lies to the Scottish people he might even have my support.

The simple fact is that both you and I know that yes wouldn't have a hope without the bullshit that's flying around from the gob of Alex and the likes of WoS.

Now, have you looked at those deficit numbers? How will iScotland deal with its bigger than UK deficit?

Will it be by going on a spending spree to deliver Alex's promises? If it is, even Swinney admits that Scotland's borrowing will go thru the roof and exceed Greece.

Oh, but he wanted to hide that from you, didn't he? And yet it's only Westminster that tries to mislead Scotland.

What is the man most closely aligned to Rupert Murdoch going to do with Scotland? That's what you should be asking yourself.

[eFestivals]

Thanks for the links which show Scotland had a higher deficit than rUK in 2012/13 which I am not disputing.

Not quite sure what the point of that was!

The other numbers, which shows it had a greater deficit in many other years too?

You are Rod Hull and i claim my five pounds you're about to fall off the roof.

[LJS]

Dammit, i've done what I try hard not to do, and was wrong to say that Scotland had a greater deficit than the UK average for all of the last 5 years. My apologies.

However, Scotland running a deficit greater than the UK average for 19 of the last 25 years is true.

These are from Alex's own (fiddled) GERS numbers.

edit: to bold the years where Scotland's deficit has been greater than the UK average.

Just for clarity (i'm on a bus & not about to tangle with pdf's) how much oil revenue is attributed to the UK in these figures?

[eFestivals]

Just for clarity (i'm on a bus & not about to tangle with pdf's) how much oil revenue is attributed to the UK in these figures?

It's clarified in what I posted.

It does help if you read information you're given.

(which I hadn't either .... tho having corrected myself, it turns out that Scotland is in a worse position than I was previously thinking)

Edited September 9, 2014 by eFestivals

[kaosmark2]

you'll love this one Neil.

"Referendum: Study finds those with more info are more likely to vote yes"

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/07/scottish-independence-referendum-research-more-information-likely-vote-yes

Define: "info"

*Processing*

Result = Those who've read more yes propaganda....

[LJS]

Define: "info"

*Processing*

Result = Those who've read more yes propaganda....

Great summary of the article, Neil. Wish I'd had it before I bothered reading it.

You do make me laugh sometimes (that's old fashioned for PMSL)

Edit: sorry assumed it was Neil

Edited September 9, 2014 by LJS

[eFestivals]

Define: "info"

*Processing*

Result = Those who've read more yes propaganda....

It doesn't look at the reasons for why.

It's pretty clear why yes-ers go for yes - and that's because they choose not to accept anything from non-Scotland as having a true basis.

It's a study that confirms the prejudices we all have because of a lack of trust in establishment politicians.

That's quite an understandable scenario given the general bollocks of all politicians.

However, what's then laughable is that an 'amateur' politician called Alex is more trusted, despite his huge lack of experience at running a sovereign govt (something he's never done). There's a massive difference between spending a guaranteed sum to what there is in first raising the sum you 're wanting to spend.

At the end of the day, what that survey discovers is that someone who hasn't yet been exposed as a huge liar is more trusted than those who have been exposed as huge liars.

Yet nothing of that actually analyses who is telling the lies here.

Edited September 9, 2014 by eFestivals

[kaosmark2]

Great summary of the article, Neil. Wish I'd had it before I bothered reading it.

You do make me laugh sometimes (that's old fashioned for PMSL)

Edit: sorry assumed it was Neil

I actually read the article, it didn't contain any real information about the methods used, the definition of information, the assessment. It's a meaningless headline.

Edited September 9, 2014 by kaosmark2

[LJS]

It doesn't look at the reasons for why.

It's pretty clear why yes-ers go for yes - and that's because they choose not to accept anything from non-Scotland as having a true basis.

That's it is it? Perhaps that's how the Westminster parties think. Which would explain why their efforts to stem the tide are doomed to failure.

Know your enemy.

[eFestivals]

That's it is it?

It's taken you eight months to accept a truth that's come from only-within Scotland, and out of Alex's own lips.

So yes, that's it entirely, and you appear to be too daft to even recognise your own methods of evaluation.

There is no truth to any view by no, they are only false claims of doom. The yes campaign in a nutshell.

Edited September 9, 2014 by eFestivals

[kaosmark2]

Know your enemy.

Enemy. What a powerful term that says a lot.

[eFestivals]

Enemy. What a powerful term that says a lot.

the civic has enemies now, and not partners?

Next up, the ethnic is reasonable - as it is when 10% of Scotland's voting population is disenfranchised on Alex's word post-indy.

We can't have those nasty foreigners voting, they might vote the wrong way.

Edited September 9, 2014 by eFestivals

[LJS]

Enemy. What a powerful term that says a lot.

[LJS]

I credited you with enough intelligence to understand the quotation & it's relevance to the BT campaign.

"If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle."

Sun Tzu, The Art of War

I also credited you with the intelligence not to make a cheap point on the use of the word "enemy"

Seems I overestimated you.

[kaosmark2]

I credited you with enough intelligence to understand the quotation & it's relevance to the BT campaign.

"If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle."

Sun Tzu, The Art of War

I also credited you with the intelligence not to make a cheap point on the use of the word "enemy"

Seems I overestimated you.

I do understand the quotation and its relevance, my point is that the fact the term "enemy" is relevant shows everything that is wrong with modern politics and campaigning, and that Yes is no different.

[eFestivals]

I credited you with enough intelligence to understand the quotation & it's relevance to the BT campaign.

"If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle."

Sun Tzu, The Art of War

I also credited you with the intelligence not to make a cheap point on the use of the word "enemy"

Seems I overestimated you.

I made a cheap point.

I also made a very relevant point. The post-indy what is currently civic nationalism becomes ethnic nationalism.

You have noticed that without the constitution you've hailed as fantastic, haven't you?

[MichaelsBeard]

Looking more and more open and shut for Yes. Remarkable considering the lead no had only 3 weeks ago without any real 'game changer' that I can remember.

[eFestivals]

Looking more and more open and shut for Yes. Remarkable considering the lead no had only 3 weeks ago without any real 'game changer' that I can remember.

the only visible game changer is Darling saying "of course you can use the pound" and the listeners being too daft to realise the full context.

The context that even Alex's own men say "we don't want to do that, it'll fuck Scotland".

Ah well, Scotland's daftness, Scotland's consequences.

(Yes, I realise they'll be some of my own, but they'll be teeny weeny in comparison).