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

beecher2

CLAPTON wrote: »

it's just staggering that scots buy this rubbish

one wonders why.

Another nuanced and thoughtful post from Clapton. :cool:

The twitter story is 3rd most popular in the Herald, and has 249 posts. Posts like that are clickbait and I wish people would just ignore them.

CLAPTON

beecher2 wrote: »

Another nuanced and thoughtful post from Clapton. :cool:

The twitter story is 3rd most popular in the Herald, and has 249 posts. Posts like that are clickbait and I wish people would just ignore them.

you missed the point of my nuanced and thoughtful post.
but no matter

TrickyTree83

Shakethedisease wrote: »

I'm afraid the Scottish press is very circular and narrow. The Express is beyond parody and the Scotsman.. well a quick look below the line is enough to confirm that those that frequent the pages are stuck in a 2014 time warp still talking about Salmond.

The Scottish media tends to inflate and trumpet even to the point twitter comments are reported as news (!) , and Willie Rennie is deemed relevant ( as an example can you imagine Nick Clegg these days plastered in every single newspaper over a few comments about Theresa May ? ). As long it is something to do with the SNP... then it's first page news with blanket coverage. This in my own opinion is hurting the other Scottish political parties greatly. These days they don't really try any more for any coverage unless they are talking nasty about the SNP, to the extent Twitter is now serious news. This in turn reinforces the message to Scots that Scottish politics begins and ends with the SNP.

This fact above is also hurting the press in Scotland. The twitter comment was out of context and was a sarcastic response to a twitter user who was talking about putting the Brain family on the first plane back to Oz. Conveniently airbrushed out of the story. But this is nothing unusual. and we've all learned to live with one sided reportage here. Most of us saw the whole Twitter conversation the single comment was taken from.

Scottish media today summed up :- And at the end of the day. I'm not really sure why people like yourself are interested in posting up endless tabloid fodder like twitter spats. They make no difference to the bigger issues at all.

Yes Kevin Hague is good at what he does. Imo he's far too narrow in scope and talks about GERS to the extent that he excludes everything else on his blog. GERS is simple accounting stats, not an economy nor running one. There is a VAST difference which is what Mr Hague also tends to airbrush out of his own discussions. His blog would be far more interesting if he focused on solutions to the problems he whines about rather than just his 'nope, can't do it' answer to every single question posed to him.

I'll stop bashing the url when I feel free enough myself to post up daily WingsoverScotland articles and when I get actual comment on the content rather than the blog name.

ps the Labour party was dominant in Scotland for 4 or 5 decades. I wouldn't be popping the champagne corks just yet waiting for that swing back either.

According to Whyte Paper and Kevin Hague they appear to agree and WoS has it woefully wrong.

Thinking GERS is flawed, wrong.

Whisky export duty, wrong, there's no such thing.

Oil revenues, wrong.

Barnett consequentials, wrong.

http://chokkablog.blogspot.co.uk/2015/06/stop-getting-gers-wrong.html

https://whytepaper.wordpress.com/2015/08/25/meme-busting-whisky-and-the-non-existent-export-duty/

https://whytepaper.wordpress.com/2015/09/01/meme-busting-scotlands-share-of-oil-revenues/

https://whytepaper.wordpress.com/2015/09/13/meme-busting-wings-over-scotland-infrastructure-spending/

These people have gone out of their way to prove what the reality is. I particularly enjoyed Fraser Whyte's rebuttal to comments posted trying to discredit what he's saying. Particularly in the Whiskey meme-buster, edits and updates in response to critics. Some of the arguments from nationalist supporters on there are poor, they clearly didn't read the article properly if they asked such questions in the comments.

These meme-busters are great, if you note the date he put this out there I've seen Scottish nationalists continue to use these arguments as justification for a counter economic argument. Like there's vast sums of money in hidden Whiskey exports, or in North Sea oil or that Scotland funds projects exclusively in England, Wales or Northern Ireland.

Regarding the Brain family - whilst I don't like it, they are just following current immigration rules. Bend it for one family and you'll get questioned over why you're not bending it for others. It's a tough situation and not as straightforward as just letting them stay.

Shakethedisease

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

According to Whyte Paper and Kevin Hague they appear to agree and WoS has it woefully wrong.

Thinking GERS is flawed, wrong.

Whisky export duty, wrong, there's no such thing.

Oil revenues, wrong.

Barnett consequentials, wrong.

http://chokkablog.blogspot.co.uk/2015/06/stop-getting-gers-wrong.html

https://whytepaper.wordpress.com/2015/08/25/meme-busting-whisky-and-the-non-existent-export-duty/

https://whytepaper.wordpress.com/2015/09/01/meme-busting-scotlands-share-of-oil-revenues/

https://whytepaper.wordpress.com/2015/09/13/meme-busting-wings-over-scotland-infrastructure-spending/

These people have gone out of their way to prove what the reality is. I particularly enjoyed Fraser Whyte's rebuttal to comments posted trying to discredit what he's saying. Particularly in the Whiskey meme-buster, edits and updates in response to critics. Some of the arguments from nationalist supporters on there are poor, they clearly didn't read the article properly if they asked such questions in the comments.

These meme-busters are great, if you note the date he put this out there I've seen Scottish nationalists continue to use these arguments as justification for a counter economic argument. Like there's vast sums of money in hidden Whiskey exports, or in North Sea oil or that Scotland funds projects exclusively in England, Wales or Northern Ireland.

Regarding the Brain family - whilst I don't like it, they are just following current immigration rules. Bend it for one family and you'll get questioned over why you're not bending it for others. It's a tough situation and not as straightforward as just letting them stay.

GERS.. the expenditure part is the Scottish Govt's own figures, a phrase that is often quoted to apply to GERS in it's entirety. However the revenue part deals with reserved matters where there are a lot of estimates.

He points us towards the notes to the numbers which say that, save for a few local revenues, “separate identification of most other revenues for Scotland is not possible. GERS therefore uses a number of different methodologies to apportion tax revenues to Scotland. In doing so, there are often theoretical and practical challenges in determining an appropriate share to allocate to Scotland. In certain cases, a variety of alternative methodologies could be applied each leading to different estimates.”It is, says Ferguson, a “pretty blatant case of starting with the answer and working out the more granular line-by-line ‘estimates’ backwards”.

No economic figures are entirely accurate, but this is different: the basic revenue numbers are more or less guesswork, to which is added an so far entirely un-negotiated share of UK oil revenues.
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 actually are.

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

I bet Merryn regrets this article now. But anyway the point is that Kevin Hague treats these figures as absolute truth and gospel. That's fine if that's the way he wants to go, but GERS itself points out that a lot of the figures within are actually estimates and guesswork.

They say nothing about what an independent Scotland's economy would look like, and certainly not mid to long term. He focuses only on the immediate situation he feels Scotland would be facing the day after independence. And you of all people must've seen all the exact same stuff being played out during the EU referendum from the Remain campaign ? It was textbook Scotland 2014 stuff. Hague gets attention because he's 1) Labour and 2) His numbers support the 'remain' campaign in Scotland's pov. It doesn't make him 100% right.

http://wingsoverscotland.com/the-limitations-of-gers/ Stu Campbell is no economist I admit, but then, neither is Kevin Hague. Jim and Margaret Cuthbert are good reads if you want to look them up, mentioned in the article above.
And since GERS release has been brought forward to being released really early and I think at the end of this month, no idea why though. I daresay we can expect another round of the same old flannel to hit media outlets and newspapers very soon. ( just a warning that the cringemeter is going to go off the scale again very shortly elentan, Leanne, beecher, zav and Hague is going to be doing the tv rounds :cool: )..

I'm not getting dragged in to another GERS round of back and forth with another poster here if you don't mind Tricky. The above is really all I have to say on it. GERS isn't a Scottish economy blueprint, its a set of accounts as to Scotland's current status within the union. Political sentiment also is quite another thing on top.

Oh and can I just say to all those that were blue in the face telling posters like me here that Scotland would be out of the EU immediately and instantly at midnight after a Yes vote. After all the hoo-hah and the amount of time predicted for the UK to leave. Never mind that an independent Scotland would never have invoked any Article 50.. That is what true scaremongering and selling lies to the UK/Scottish populous in the UK/Scottish press and media looks like. What total and utter industrial scale mince and b******ks that was !

If there is another Scottish referendum at any point, I look forward to being told that Scotland will be 'chucked out' forthwith and laughing heartily at the thought since we'll probably be on year 3 or 4 after this Brexit vote and England and Wales actually want to go.

zagubov

CLAPTON wrote: »

you missed the point of my nuanced and thoughtful post.

TBH, a lot of us do that.:o

CLAPTON wrote: »

but no matter

We comfort ourselves with that thought.

.string.

CLAPTON wrote: »

it's just staggering that scots buy this rubbish

one wonders why.

Actually it appears that most Scots don't.

CLAPTON

.string. wrote: »

Actually it appears that most Scots don't.

good to know you did understand the post

TrickyTree83

Shakethedisease wrote: »

GERS.. the expenditure part is the Scottish Govt's own figures, a phrase that is often quoted to apply to GERS in it's entirety. However the revenue part deals with reserved matters where there are a lot of estimates.

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

I bet Merryn regrets this article now. But anyway the point is that Kevin Hague treats these figures as absolute truth and gospel. That's fine if that's the way he wants to go, but GERS itself points out that a lot of the figures within are actually estimates and guesswork.

They say nothing about what an independent Scotland's economy would look like, and certainly not mid to long term. He focuses only on the immediate situation he feels Scotland would be facing the day after independence. And you of all people must've seen all the exact same stuff being played out during the EU referendum from the Remain campaign ? It was textbook Scotland 2014 stuff. Hague gets attention because he's 1) Labour and 2) His numbers support the 'remain' campaign in Scotland's pov. It doesn't make him 100% right.

http://wingsoverscotland.com/the-limitations-of-gers/ Stu Campbell is no economist I admit, but then, neither is Kevin Hague. Jim and Margaret Cuthbert are good reads if you want to look them up, mentioned in the article above.
And since GERS release has been brought forward to being released really early and I think at the end of this month, no idea why though. I daresay we can expect another round of the same old flannel to hit media outlets and newspapers very soon. ( just a warning that the cringemeter is going to go off the scale again very shortly elentan, Leanne, beecher, zav and Hague is going to be doing the tv rounds :cool: )..

I'm not getting dragged in to another GERS round of back and forth with another poster here if you don't mind Tricky. The above is really all I have to say on it. GERS isn't a Scottish economy blueprint, its a set of accounts as to Scotland's current status within the union. Political sentiment also is quite another thing on top.

Oh and can I just say to all those that were blue in the face telling posters like me here that Scotland would be out of the EU immediately and instantly at midnight after a Yes vote. After all the hoo-hah and the amount of time predicted for the UK to leave. Never mind that an independent Scotland would never have invoked any Article 50.. That is what true scaremongering and selling lies to the UK/Scottish populous in the UK/Scottish press and media looks like. What total and utter industrial scale mince and b******ks that was !

If there is another Scottish referendum at any point, I look forward to being told that Scotland will be 'chucked out' forthwith and laughing heartily at the thought since we'll probably be on year 3 or 4 after this Brexit vote and England and Wales actually want to go.

I'll get round to reading those posts on WoS in time.

(And lets put the politics of the issue to side for a moment.)

My instant reply would be that although they are estimates, they will not be estimates done with a view to hiding £billions from the audience, which as I'm sure you're aware is what you need to find in an iScotland scenario. So assuming GERS is inaccurate to a degree, say at 80% accuracy, you'll still have economic problems that need to be addressed. The accuracy may be even lower, this would surprise me if the paid statisticians estimated such grossly incorrect numbers. I would have expected to see some very blatant signs of that in the media in the run up to Indy1 finding £billions that people such as Kevin Hague and Fraser Whyte wouldn't be able to disprove, rather than what we actually have which are just claims such as the Whiskey export duty myth.

Whilst the myriad of analyses done on GERS with a view to disproving the economic case for iScotland are done by laypersons with an interest and may not be 100% accurate themselves, again similar rules would apply whereby if they are 80% accurate, problems still need to be addressed. i.e. if the UKCS share of North Sea oil and gas Scotland had was 100% rather than the 83% (?) assumed based on UKCS area that lies within Scottish territorial waters, it still wouldn't make that much of a difference overall. So whilst they are pointing out flaws in an argument for iScotland in that 100% of the UKCS isn't owned by Scotland and that it's debatable whether Scotland would even come out with 83% (?) after negotiations, the picture doesn't really change. As oil aficionados point out, North Sea oil doesn't work at $45 a barrel, and recently it was at $50 whilst receiving government subsidies to continue to operate.

The above is a long winded way of pointing out, it doesn't make them 100% wrong either. GERS, Kevin Hague or Fraser Whyte. Whilst there may be some small errors here and there the overall indicative picture would largely remain the same. And white elephants such as Whiskey export duty, North Sea oil, Barnett consequentials and incorrect GERS figures don't change that picture.

.string.

@TrickyTree83 - Your last paragraph is completely correct, no percentage need be applied to it. But the trouble is that those in the SNP Collective, in as much as they even listen to such arguments, are not interested in whether it is true or not, all in consumed by the lemming-like desire to separate Scots from their fellow Brits. You won't get anything from Shakey but a reiteration of the latest favourable Poll (from the SNP viewpoint), the denigration of whoever it was that produced the figures or the discovery of one or two SNP-tilted "experts" who think everything will be wonderful in Natland and the claim that they are to be believed and no-one else. Or, of course, the normal trick of picking on some minor phrase in what you have written and trying to change the subject. - All as per the SNP Mantra - Discussion is futile, We will dissimilate you.

Shakethedisease

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

I'll get round to reading those posts on WoS in time.

(And lets put the politics of the issue to side for a moment.)

My instant reply would be that although they are estimates, they will not be estimates done with a view to hiding £billions from the audience, which as I'm sure you're aware is what you need to find in an iScotland scenario. So assuming GERS is inaccurate to a degree, say at 80% accuracy, you'll still have economic problems that need to be addressed. The accuracy may be even lower, this would surprise me if the paid statisticians estimated such grossly incorrect numbers. I would have expected to see some very blatant signs of that in the media in the run up to Indy1 finding £billions that people such as Kevin Hague and Fraser Whyte wouldn't be able to disprove, rather than what we actually have which are just claims such as the Whiskey export duty myth.

Whilst the myriad of analyses done on GERS with a view to disproving the economic case for iScotland are done by laypersons with an interest and may not be 100% accurate themselves, again similar rules would apply whereby if they are 80% accurate, problems still need to be addressed. i.e. if the UKCS share of North Sea oil and gas Scotland had was 100% rather than the 83% (?) assumed based on UKCS area that lies within Scottish territorial waters, it still wouldn't make that much of a difference overall. So whilst they are pointing out flaws in an argument for iScotland in that 100% of the UKCS isn't owned by Scotland and that it's debatable whether Scotland would even come out with 83% (?) after negotiations, the picture doesn't really change. As oil aficionados point out, North Sea oil doesn't work at $45 a barrel, and recently it was at $50 whilst receiving government subsidies to continue to operate.

The above is a long winded way of pointing out, it doesn't make them 100% wrong either. GERS, Kevin Hague or Fraser Whyte. Whilst there may be some small errors here and there the overall indicative picture would largely remain the same. And white elephants such as Whiskey export duty, North Sea oil, Barnett consequentials and incorrect GERS figures don't change that picture.

Fill your boots then on some of the papers below. Jim Cuthbert used to be the Chief Statistician of Scotland. Papers from 1998 to the present day. If it's in depth economics, statistics and critiques your after rather than amateur blogs and are willing to be open minded then download a few of these. There are a few that concentrate specifically on GERS.

http://www.jamcuthbert.co.uk/

The first of the themes relates to public expenditure in Scotland, and monitoring the financial aspects of devolution.

Under this theme are papers dealing with various aspects of the Barnett formula, (the means by which the major part of the funding of the Scottish Parliament is currently determined): there are also critiques of the Scottish Executive’s annual exercise on Government Expenditure and Revenues in Scotland, and of the Treasury’s fundamental Public Expenditure Statistical Analysis. There are also papers dealing with what information is required so that the operation of devolution can be properly monitored. All of these papers represent an attempt to look below the surface of, and to demystify, the important subject of Scotland’s public finances

Like I say, I don't want drawn in again personally on GERS. It'll all kick off again in the next month no doubt anyway.