The New Fat Scotland 'Thanks for all the Fish' Thread.

sss555s

.string. wrote: »

Liability by association with a failing economy, so some decrease in the value of Sterling.

sss555s wrote: »

I asked how you justify it as we all knew what would happen?

.string. wrote: »

So you dodge the question. I had expected you to defend what you had written, instead I get an SNP slogan.

Cough!!!!!

sss555s

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

What is 14.7 + 15 + 10?

Hint: It's not 35.

Are these the 2017 meme's that we need to debunk? Consider the gentleman on twitter debunked as an imbecile on the basis of his p*$$ poor arithmetic.

I'll get to the pretty pictures at some point in the near future, unless Mr Hague or Whyte gets there first.

Well at least you're the only one to try to "answer" to fact that Scotland has no trade deficit even if it is a total banana skin side step of the facts.
Calling everyone who proves your "fact" as fiction just shows you have no real important argument left.

Can you please answer the points made about Scotlands positive trade situation and why it has been burdened with a massive chunk of debt and also why you keep saying Scotland is in a dire trading situation when the opposit is true?

.string.

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

Par for the course.
Sad, eh?

Look over these pages & see how many questions go unanswered - that or the old trick of "drown it our with multipole posts" to move the questions away from the leading page.

These posters think no-one notices.
Increasingly they do, making many of the pro-indy posters in this thread look like a right bunch of unmentionables.
On the bright side it furthers favourable opinions of the unionist segment.
:T

Yes it is sad. It is frustrating to put some thought into a comment and get either no response or a repetition of slogans about some deflection or other and which contribute nothing or indeed are often irrelevant to the subject. Attempts to explain further are rarely worthwhile¡ for the same reason. The temptation to retaliate in kind is strong but maybe I'll just be more taciturn.

I'm beholden to no party for the simple reason that in my view to be so requires putting one's mind in neutral and loosing the power to reason for oneself. There's ample evidence of that thesis in this thread.

IveSeenTheLight

.string. wrote: »

Yes it is sad. It is frustrating to put some thought into a comment and get either no response or a repetition of slogans about some deflection or other and which contribute nothing or indeed are often irrelevant to the subject.

Indeed, my post is a great example of this.

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=72557891&postcount=10422

Yet see the trolling posts afterwards demanding an answer to a question I already answered.

Mistermeaner

Anyone who understands the economics would not support independence for Scotland - the facts are plain for those with the comprehension

Ergo it is impossible to have a sensible economic discussion with any pro indi folk as they simply don't understand what they are talking about

.string.

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

What is 14.7 + 15 + 10?

Hint: It's not 35.

Are these the 2017 meme's that we need to debunk? Consider the gentleman on twitter debunked as an imbecile on the basis of his p*$$ poor arithmetic.

I'll get to the pretty pictures at some point in the near future, unless Mr Hague or Whyte gets there first.

An example of the latter (from last October):

https://whytepaper.wordpress.com/2016/10/17/meme-busting-deficit-drivel/

.string.

sss555s wrote: »

Cough!!!!!

You had better see someone about that cough. Maybe it is psychosomatic

IveSeenTheLight

Mistermeaner wrote: »

Anyone who understands the economics would not support independence for Scotland - the facts are plain for those with the comprehension

Ergo it is impossible to have a sensible economic discussion with any pro indi folk as they simply don't understand what they are talking about

One could debate that your opinion is blinkered by the constraints you place on the current conditions and are not open enough to consider alternative options or to think outside the box.

Incidentally, there are plenty of examples where people who understand economics who can see a positive future as an independent Scotland.

Such as:-

Top Oxford economist changes mind to back the financial benefits of Scottish independence

kabayiri

Clearly, people on both sides mistrust the figures.

I think the fairest solution is to allocate funding around the UK on an even basis per capita. Then, areas which attract more people would attract more funding.

.string.

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

One could debate that your opinion is blinkered by the constraints you place on the current conditions and are not open enough to consider alternative options or to think outside the box.

Incidentally, there are plenty of examples where people who understand economics who can see a positive future as an independent Scotland.

Such as:-

Top Oxford economist changes mind to back the financial benefits of Scottish independence

Your first sentence applies to many political arguments. It certainly applies to the article by Wren-Lewis which you !ink where, as per SNP-think does, it assumes a really bad outcome to the Brexit negotiations and simulaniously an immediate seamless membership of the single market for Scotland. Both are at extremes of possible scenarios.

Another report from the financial times is worth reading.

https://www.ft.com/content/7c6f8ca8-0807-11e7-97d1-5e720a26771b

All who read such things should shield themselves from overdoses of both pessimism and optimism, not to mention jingoism.