Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

IveSeenTheLight

ruggedtoast wrote: »

I am considering changing the name of this thread to something more accurate.

How about: "The 'I would like to argue infinitum about Scotland until my brain starts to drip out of my ears' thread."?

Doesn't matter in either case.

Both are intended to offend and cause division.

We're used to it though and let the matter wash over.

ruggedtoast

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Doesn't matter in either case.

Both are intended to offend and cause division.

We're used to it though and let the matter wash over.

.
Yes, its all like all like water off a ducks back to you. I've always thought that.

Shakethedisease

Tromking wrote: »

You know you're very hard to have a sensible discussion with when you ignore the line of argument in order to shoe-in a put down.
You said that the Scottish people, or the ones who voted SNP had chosen a different path, and the vehicles for that different path would be Independence, FFA or calls for an anti-austerity narrative.
I merely suggested that there were problems or issues with those approaches.
There's no need for rudeness.

I pointed out some facts. That the SNP 'don't want independence' is probably stretching things just a tad far in terms of believability.

Generali

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Doesn't matter in either case.

Both are intended to offend and cause division.

We're used to it though and let the matter wash over.

IIRC STD came up with the title of the thread. Perhaps she's a Unionist sleeper...?

IveSeenTheLight

ruggedtoast wrote: »

.
Yes, its all like all like water off a ducks back to you. I've always thought that.

You've certainly never seen me relate anything to this thread title.

It's a little quip that's not going to rile me, or your alternative thread title.

Crack on if it gives you any joy.

P.S. If "I would like to argue infinitum about Scotland until my brain starts to drip out of my ears' thread" is causing you so much discomfort, why create a thread to specifically discuss Scottish things?

Shakethedisease

chewmylegoff wrote: »

Moneyweek is a hysterical tabloid equivalent with no credibility. But anyway, the main point remains that the article is completely irrelevant as it has nothing to do with expenditure. The GERS information is published by the treasury but the main components are (I) spending data from the Scottish Central government (ii) spending data from local government in Scotland (iii) spending on benefits paid to people living in Scotland and (iv) a per capita share of debt interest and defence spending.

You can continue to argue that those inputs are made up on the basis of a moneyweek article about apportionment of tax revenue until you are blue in the face but the only person you are fooling is yourself. If you genuinely believe that the treasury prepares the GERS figures for the purpose of making an independent Scotland look financial non-viable then you have developed an extreme and ludicrous persecution complex.

If the figures were false it would be easy to prove it because most of the information presented is about spending which has been devolved to Holyrood or Scottish local government. The SNP and their acolytes would have debunked the GERS figures using evidence by now if they could instead of having to resort to the ramblings of Merryn Somerset Webb on a different subject!

The SNP didn't use MoneyWeek or Merryn. I did. I have no views here nor there on Moneyweek, or the lady herself. In fact in that particular article, it's another economist she's quoting herself.

I asked James Ferguson of The MacroStrategy Partnership to have a closer look at this for me for the simple reason that the numbers appear remarkably convenient:

http://moneyweek.com/one-less-thing-to-think-about-in-the-scottish-referendum-debate/

Don't get so hung up on this one article. It's just one of many that questions the basis of GERS. But there's little point posting many of them up, as they're dismissed depending on how 'pro-independence' or not the source is regardless of the content. Kind of like you've just done with Moneyweek and Merryn on the basis of 'hysterics'.

Shakethedisease

Generali wrote: »

IIRC STD came up with the title of the thread. Perhaps she's a Unionist sleeper...?

No, string posted a thread up that had a really sensible title.. but no-one posted in it. I jokingly suggested that a thread title with 'Fat Salmond and Fishy Sturgeon want the English to pay for more Scottish subsidies' etc etc might gain more attention.

Rugged did the rest.

ruggedtoast

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

You've certainly never seen me relate anything to this thread title.

It's a little quip that's not going to rile me, or your alternative thread title.

Crack on if it gives you any joy.

P.S. If "I would like to argue infinitum about Scotland until my brain starts to drip out of my ears' thread" is causing you so much discomfort, why create a thread to specifically discuss Scottish things?

Well, 220 pages with no end in sight can change a man's view of the world.

And the SNP haven't done anything since the election apart from take selfies so I am not sure what we all have to discuss at the moment.

I am, however, still reasonably hopeful that Nicola Sturgeon, bare breasted and woad stained, will thunder into Westminster on a chariot girded by terrifying bekilted warriors; swing her halberd expertly in a circle, and cleanly decapitate the PM and entire Tory cabinet.

chewmylegoff

Shakethedisease wrote: »

The SNP didn't use MoneyWeek or Merryn. I did. I have no views here nor there on Moneyweek, or the lady herself. In fact in that particular article, it's another economist she's quoting herself.

Who is another moneyweek "journalist"...

Don't get so hung up on this one article. It's just one of many that questions the basis of GERS. But there's little point posting many of them up, as they're dismissed depending on how 'pro-independence' or not the source is regardless of the content. Kind of like you've just done with Moneyweek and Merryn on the basis of 'hysterics'.

I didn't dismiss it because it was "pro-independence", I dismissed it because it is irrelevant to the original post which you responded to by posting the article. You of course know this so you are just ignoring that point.

By the way, given that you are so fixated on going on and on about this irrelevant article, if you actually read it, it is not "pro-independence" at all, and it concludes: "So there you go. I’m giving you one less thing to think about: you can now happily ignore all the financial arguments for a separate Scotland on the basis that no one knows what they are". (Emphasis added - this appears to me to dismiss the financial arguments made by both camps...).

This conclusion is reached on the basis of two moneyweek journalists agreeing with each other that the revenue figures in GERS must be made up because some assumptions have been used. If you actually read GERS rather than ideologically attacking it because it doesn't say what you want it to say, those assumptions include the same ones you say should be used to identify VAT/NI revenues raised in Scotland so that they can be allocated to Scotland to be spent there.

Anyway it is pretty obvious that you will only accept financial information which says what you want it to say so there is little point discussing it. I think you would benefit from actually reading GERS and analysing it for yourself as it is quite clear that you haven't done so - although you would have to learn the difference between tax revenues and public expenditure first if you are going to get anything out of such an exercise.

Shakethedisease

chewmylegoff wrote: »

Who is another moneyweek "journalist"...

I didn't dismiss it because it was "pro-independence", I dismissed it because it is irrelevant to the original post which you responded to by posting the article. You of course know this so you are just ignoring that point.

I KNOW it wasn't pro-independence. I was talking about posting articles up here that come from WingsoverScotland or Bellacaledonia etc etc. They are routinely dismissed whatever the content, because they come from Wings or Bella. So I gave up on that sort of thing eons ago here. You dismissed the one in question due to 'hysterics' as I stated ( notably, not the content ).

By the way, given that you are so fixated on going on and on about this irrelevant article, if you actually read it, it is not "pro-independence" at all, and it concludes: "So there you go. I’m giving you one less thing to think about: you can now happily ignore all the financial arguments for a separate Scotland on the basis that no one knows what they are". (Emphasis added - this appears to me to dismiss the financial arguments made by both camps...).

It's you that's fixated. I've posted up loads and loads of articles here. Much to the apparent dismay of many who post on this thread and previous ones I can assure you. The above was just another one of many.

This conclusion is reached on the basis of two moneyweek journalists agreeing with each other that the revenue figures in GERS must be made up because some assumptions have been used. If you actually read GERS rather than ideologically attacking it because it doesn't say what you want it to say, those assumptions include the same ones you say should be used to identify VAT/NI revenues raised in Scotland so that they can be allocated to Scotland to be spent there.

Anyway it is pretty obvious that you will only accept financial information which says what you want it to say so there is little point discussing it. I think you would benefit from actually reading GERS and analysing it for yourself as it is quite clear that you haven't done so - although you would have to learn the difference between tax revenues and public expenditure first if you are going to get anything out of such an exercise.

I've been round the block and back again several times re GERS and Scottish finances. I think we all have on this thread. And it's boring doing so yet again. It's obvious both sides come from very different viewpoints. For me, GERS isn't necessarily 100% accurate.Nor should it be treated as such. And more to the point, it reflects ( as it states on the introduction to itself ) Scottish finances at the current time "within the current constitutional arrangements".

It says nothing of Scotland outwith these current constitutional arrangements, either via independence or FFA. Short term, mid term or long term. Extrapolating a theoretical independent Scotlands finances 5, 10 or 30 years into the future is useless. As most simply assume a theoretical Scottish government in control of all revenues, taxes and expenditure, would follow 100% what the UK does currently. Which is patently nonsense. Otherwise there would be no need or desire for independence or FFA. The whole point of which, is to do things differently and much more specific to Scotland ( ie a greater focus on renewables, no Trident, differing tax and welfare rates, immigration policies etc etc <---- purely examples).