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

TrickyTree83

.string. wrote: »

I confess not having read it yet, but just glancing at it. I did notice that defence is way down and not consistent with NATO membership, so presumably it is a "behind the sofa" defence policy, that a profit is made from providing pensions and that there is no allowance for paying down the national debt, just "interest", as before. Didn't find the source of revenue - maybe another look will reveal it.

Embassies will apparently cost 10% of the (low) UK costs in spite of the fact that they would have to be bought/rented. A sort of borrowing strategy is assumed. Borrowing costs.

In a way it is good that the document is out there. If it stands up to criticism that is something the Scots should know, if it does not that is also something the Scots should know. However, as mentioned before a PhD in Laser Physics (I've not seen any economic experience but maybe missed the Nobel prize in economics) is hardly the right background for this sort of analysis.

Still his document should be given the level of credibility that an activist deserves - must read carefully.

I think you're giving it far too much credit, I've only gotten 4 pages in and it's riddled with inconsistency, bias assumptions and non-reality.

TrickyTree83

Shakethedisease wrote: »

I hope you know that Kevin Hague isn't an economist either ? But yes, go ahead an critique, that's what it's there for. Certainly those in the pro indy camp are doing the same.;) http://www.thenational.scot/news/14912958.We_can_work_it_out__Why_Unionist_financial_sums_don_t_add_up_any_more/

All depends on the theoretical negotiations doesn't it really. But much more of this sort of thing will definitely blunt the impact of any Obsorne-esque repeat of Brexit warnings that would happen immediately after the vote. Which in effect is what Hague, Whyte and Lovatt do all the time. A good start.

I disagree.

All I see is an echo chamber of people giving the Dr a pat on the back. Calling it sound, calling it methodical.

4 pages in and I've already posted 3/4 posts questioning the veracity of what's been said in the paper. It's a start for sure, but not a particularly good one as the same "old tired arguments" against Scottish independence still hold up to scrutiny which the Dr has conveniently glided over. I suppose it goes to show that nothing has changed in 2 years that makes everyone who was against independence wrong.

You can hope that there's a magic needle in the haystack of bias pro-indy propaganda, but hope won't help you if you turn out to be wrong, which the evidence still suggests to be the case.

I've not read all of the paper yet, but what are the odds on the Dr saying nothing of the Border Effect?

Will anyone take up this bet? I'll give £20 to your chosen charity and produce the receipt if the good Dr does indeed mention the Border Effect (which is also as a result of scientific studies).

Shakethedisease

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

I'll interject my own running commentary on this work of fiction to say that not all roads lead to indy2 do they. In Nicola's own words, a Norway model would stop that in its tracks.

Theresa May will refuse the Norway model for Scotland.. much to Scottish Labour and Lib Dems disappointment and the SNP's quiet joy, and is unlikely to be going down that route for the UK. Scottish Labour/Lib Dems are still pretending there are options available which need to be taken off the table completely. May will do so.

Why then do you support those who twist situations into non-realities. Like this article on all roads leading to indy2, or this paper on a post-GERS Scotland?

No idea what you're on about there.

Given your recent lack of capitulation to logic in relation to the anglophobia presence in the SNP, the scrambling around for headlines and soundbites from like minded delusionals just comes off as desperate to keep a narrative alive. As evident in your own words:

Does it ? I think it reflects what's actually going to happen in the near future more than anything else. As soon as Brexit happened it was very obvious that a hard Brexit = indy ref2. Nothing has changed.

Do you too sense the tide turning against independence?

Eh ? Theresa May is going to trigger Article 50 in March. So time is short. Well maybe..

Scots and Welsh can have say in Brexit court case

The Scottish and Welsh governments are to be allowed to intervene in the Supreme Court battle over how Brexit should be triggered.
The government is appealing against a High Court ruling that MPs must vote on triggering Article 50 - something the PM wants to happen by April 2017.
Scotland and Wales's senior law officers can intervene in the appeal, which begins on 5 December.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38027230 ( in case you missed this on the other thread about the court case).

When watching QT and listening to the split in the audience it would appear the stronghold of Stirling isn't quite so biased towards the SNP as you would have us believe. And on that topic, the pro-independence activist who presumed she could lecture the audience on the pro's and con's of Brexit showed her true colours when it emerged she didn't even vote. Some real sound conviction there.

If the audience was based on party political grounds then it would be about 4 to 1 against independence. I am not a fan of Cat Boyd. Nor is she of the SNP. You'd know that, and who she is if you followed Scottish politics in any depth. The make up of a BBC audience tells us nothing about Scotland except what the BBC's audience selection policy is.. if you actually think about it.

TrickyTree83

The Tax Gap

the UK appears roughly in line with this average at 36%
of GDP but this average conceals a broad spread even among
European countries ranging from 26% of GDP (Switzerland)
to 50.9% (Denmark). Further, analysis of GERS shows that
Scotland's tax revenue as a percentage of GDP lags slightly behind
the UK's at 34%

That said, whilst the Scottish Government
has claimed that median income in Scotland is higher and income
inequality is lower than the rest of the UK the lower number
of higher and additional rate earners in Scotland compared to
the rest of the UK coupled with the fact that the tax bands are
optimised for the UK as a whole has the effect of reducing
Scotland's overall income tax revenue per capita compared to the
UK.

That's beautiful. Absolutely perfect.

Actual acknowledgement that the taxation system of the UK favours Scottish people due to the setup of the tax bands. i.e. You pay less tax in the UK than this Dr is advocating for in order to shore up the finances.

So when people here told you tax rises and austerity would be the result of independence - were they correct, or is the author wrong?

TrickyTree83

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Theresa May will refuse the Norway model for Scotland.. much to Scottish Labour and Lib Dems disappointment and the SNP's quiet joy, and is unlikely to be going down that route for the UK. Scottish Labour/Lib Dems are still pretending there are options available which need to be taken off the table completely. May will do so.

No idea what you're on about there.

Does it ? I think it reflects what's actually going to happen in the near future more than anything else. As soon as Brexit happened it was very obvious that a hard Brexit = indy ref2. Nothing has changed.

Eh ? Theresa May is going to trigger Article 50 in March. So time is short. Well maybe..

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38027230 ( in case you missed this on the other thread about the court case).

If the audience was based on party political grounds then it would be about 4 to 1 against independence. I am not a fan of Cat Boyd. Nor is she of the SNP. You'd know that, and who she is if you followed Scottish politics in any depth. The make up of a BBC audience tells us nothing about Scotland except what the BBC's audience selection policy is.. if you actually think about it.

To be honest I'm now of the opinion that not following Scottish politics as closely as yourself gives me the ability to acknowledge the truth rather than be blinded by propaganda and ideology.

Right so the BBC's audience in QT isn't representative of the citizens of Stirling - I'll accept that. By the same logic a Remain vote is not a pro-independence vote. And an SNP vote is not necessarily a pro-independence vote either. You'll only know the answer to that if another referendum comes to pass, correct?

So CLAPTON banging on about what the polls show (granted polls have recently been shown to be poor indicators) are the best indicators of what you and others consistently claim about the upsurge in support for independence since the direct question is being asked. Yet the polls do not show this to be the case.

.string.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

I hope you know that Kevin Hague isn't an economist either ? But yes, go ahead an critique, that's what it's there for. Certainly those in the pro indy camp are doing the same.;) http://www.thenational.scot/news/14912958.We_can_work_it_out__Why_Unionist_financial_sums_don_t_add_up_any_more/

All depends on the theoretical negotiations doesn't it really. But much more of this sort of thing will definitely blunt the impact of any Obsorne-esque repeat of Brexit warnings that would happen immediately after the vote. Which in effect is what Hague, Whyte and Lovatt do all the time. A good start.

Osborne made a mistake, I agree. This thing is shot full of people with slanted views of course.

For example, from the article you quoted:

Professor Mike Danson of Heriot Watt University called the work “sound and methodical”, adding that it is “far superior to the pre-programmed responses of opposition parties and commentators who cannot read beyond the headline or seek to question assumptions that would not apply to an independent Scotland”.

He went on: “By adopting best practice, a non-partisan picture of a much healthier Scottish budget is revealed. .........."

"Non-partisan picture" my ****. Mike Danson , apparently a Scottish Independence supporter from way back, is not the best guarantor of such things.

Shakethedisease

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

I disagree.

All I see is an echo chamber of people giving the Dr a pat on the back. Calling it sound, calling it methodical.

4 pages in and I've already posted 3/4 posts questioning the veracity of what's been said in the paper. It's a start for sure, but not a particularly good one as the same "old tired arguments" against Scottish independence still hold up to scrutiny which the Dr has conveniently glided over. I suppose it goes to show that nothing has changed in 2 years that makes everyone who was against independence wrong.

Why don't you ask him on Twitter then ? He seems quite nice and personable to those engaging with him there. Or on his blog ?

You can hope that there's a magic needle in the haystack of bias pro-indy propaganda, but hope won't help you if you turn out to be wrong, which the evidence still suggests to be the case.

It'll still dampen the Osborne effect ( as opposed to the Border one ). Especially when the full Common Weal white papers are released next year. Am assuming other pro-independence groups have theirs also in the works.

I've not read all of the paper yet, but what are the odds on the Dr saying nothing of the Border Effect?

Will anyone take up this bet? I'll give £20 to your chosen charity and produce the receipt if the good Dr does indeed mention the Border Effect (which is also as a result of scientific studies).

Maybe you should keep an eye out for something here, but bear in mind that the Common Weal/Space tends to be a bit more/far more to the left in general than the SNP on many policy areas.

https://www.commonspace.scot/policy

Right am away on the school run. Nice chatting.

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

Osborne made a mistake, I agree. This thing is shot full of people with slanted views of course.

For example, from the article you quoted:

"Non-partisan picture" my ****. Mike Danson , apparently a Scottish Independence supporter from way back, is not the best guarantor of such things.

Hague and Whyte are slanted as well. But you like them and their articles and blogs and linked to them above. I'm just doing the same as you do ? Why is it ok for you but not for me ?

.string.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Hague and Whyte are slanted as well. But you like them and their articles and blogs and linked to them above. I'm just doing the same as you do ? Why is it ok for you but not for me ?

OK so you were rushed and didn't read my post properly.

I wrote:"This thing is shot full of people with slanted views of course." I was acknowledging the point before you made it.

I forgive you.

TrickyTree83

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Hague and Whyte are slanted as well. But you like them and their articles and blogs and linked to them above. I'm just doing the same as you do ? Why is it ok for you but not for me ?

.string is correct though that they're basically lying through their teeth.

Of course it's partisan. Of course the commentators are partisan.

It's not sound either, it might be methodical but using the wrong method (i.e. spending more on public sector services somehow increases the net tax take?!) is still methodical, it's just wrong in its conclusion after the method.