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

kabayiri

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

Oh how I laughed! Someone should make a montage of her pro EU preaching and then absolute collapse when asked if she voted. Hypocrisy was dripping from her.

They should have sat her next to Chris Bryant, trying to reconcile his comments about Jeremy Corbyn.

The two of them sat there squirming, reminds me of those dancing flowers you used to get

Shakethedisease

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

Yes papers like this get people talking about independence, but what papers like this really do is spread misinformation.

You'll now have throngs of pro-independence supporters patting the Dr on the back on a job well done. Holding it up as some form of religious text that proves they were right all along and the heresy of those who disagree with their view can go to hell. Because these people, who already agree with the Dr regardless of whatever version of his truth he trots out, have already bought into it all. They won't objectively scrutinise the paper, look for the inconsistencies, the irregularities, the down right false. They're already paid up members (politically) to the idea of an independent Scotland, so a paper on the economics doesn't matter to them.

What should matter is getting it honest, getting it factual, with no bias, so that when those who will scrutinise it who are yet to be converted to your cause read the paper they will have no argument that an independent Scotland can thrive. Because thriving is what's required, simply maintaining the status quo, or being worse off won't win you any voters.

No one took up my offer of the £20 bet, having now read all of the paper I would have won it anyway. It cannot be taken seriously unless it addresses all known facets of the independence argument. The border effect being one rarely mentioned by pro-independence supporters, but an effect that is well documented and supported by scientific study that would wipe out all of his pseudo GDP gains.

This is just one in a series of papers that have been and are yet to be released. I gave you the link to browse through, and they include 'debts and assets' 'currency' etc etc.

And while I can see why you might be worrying about misinformation. There's plenty of that about everywhere both in the media and online. People will just have to read and make up their own minds. Hague, Whyte and Lovatt only ever get as far as discussing the in's and out's of GERS. The paper I highlighted is the first I've ever seen produced in recent years, going a few steps further than that and providing some fresh insight and possible ideas. For that alone it's worth the kudos regardless of agreement or not.

kabayiri

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

Oh how I laughed! Someone should make a montage of her pro EU preaching and then absolute collapse when asked if she voted. Hypocrisy was dripping from her.

She will be one of the 1/3 of eligible Scottish voters so passionate about the EU that they couldn't be bothered to vote. I wonder how many of them were in the audience?

At least Shakey goes to the effort of putting a cross in the box

Shakethedisease

kabayiri wrote: »

Yes, she was very good.

Merryn's fab isn't she ? Has a real and deep insight and understanding into how the finances of Scotland work. :T



I've quoted her in simpering glowing terms myself here many, many times now. Especially the above quote in which she nailed GERS figures and methodolgy to a tee during the independence referendum, in two in-depth articles looking into them and the methodology which produces them.

Of course, back then I was told she wasn't very good and had absolutely no idea what she was talking about. I have no probs digging out those articles for you if you want to avail yourself of her insights, since she obviously impressed you and Tricky !

I'm not sure why they invited that shrieky independent woman on the other side of David.

She looked out of her depth, kept retreating back to the 'orrible Tories meme.

She felt so strongly about the EU referendum, to the point where she didn't even vote!

She looked an a$$ at that point! :rotfl:

No one else has any idea either why she was there either. She was a candidate for the RISE party in May ( spin off from Radical Independence group), and writes columns etc. She was quite surprised to get the invite herself if her twitter feed is anything to go by. She's probably wishing now that she had declined. She was obviously very nervous and her voting admission she'll probably never live down if she's thinking of standing again.

TrickyTree83

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Merryn's fab isn't she ? Has a real and deep insight and understanding into how the finances of Scotland work. :T



I've quoted her in simpering glowing terms myself here many, many times now. Especially the above quote in which she nailed GERS figures and methodolgy to a tee during the independence referendum, in two in-depth articles looking into them and the methodology which produces them.

Of course, back then I was told she wasn't very good and had absolutely no idea what she was talking about. I have no probs digging out those articles for you if you want to avail yourself of her insights, since she obviously impressed you and Tricky !

No one else has any idea either why she was there either. She was a candidate for the RISE party in May ( spin off from Radical Independence group), and writes columns etc. She was quite surprised to get the invite herself if her twitter feed is anything to go by. She's probably wishing now that she had declined. She was obviously very nervous and her voting admission she'll probably never live down if she's thinking of standing again.

And yet if you look at any articles Merryn has written they completely lambaste the independence movement.

i.e. http://moneyweek.com/scottish-indepence-the-cost-of-breaking-the-union/

Anyhow, I agreed with what she said last night, quite obviously that doesn't mean I agree with everything she says, and if she has indeed said that about GERS, I completely disagree. Why? Because GERS is compiled by the Scottish government statisticians, for the Scottish government and used - by all, bar none, to make their case, including the SNP who happen to be in control of the Scottish government.

Shakethedisease

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

And yet if you look at any articles Merryn has written they completely lambaste the independence movement.

i.e. http://moneyweek.com/scottish-indepence-the-cost-of-breaking-the-union/

Anyhow, I agreed with what she said last night, quite obviously that doesn't mean I agree with everything she says, and if she has indeed said that about GERS, I completely disagree. Why? Because GERS is compiled by the Scottish government statisticians, for the Scottish government and used - by all, bar none, to make their case, including the SNP who happen to be in control of the Scottish government.

Lighten up a little.

She wrote those articles safe in the knowledge when the No campaign was about 20+ points ahead. Obviously when things got a little bit on the tight side she's been since air brushing them from her memory. Unfortunately for her no one else has though. Which is why her about turn ( since she lives in Scotland now ) has been somewhat amusing. Every time she appears on tv earnestly spouting doom and gloom about GERS and Scotland, Twitter and Facebook are over run with people posting those comments and quotes. It undermines her credibility,

Also now that it's known that she's a 'Scotland in Union' advisor, you can be sure that too will be all over Twitter and Facebook within minutes the next time she pops up. In fact it's misleading that she wasn't introduced as such on QT last night among her credentials. She's no longer a neutral player and this should be clearly stated in future as it would've been for anyone else.

The articles have gone, but here's a screen shot of part of it from Wings. Though like I said, I've posted the Moneyweek original articles and extracts from it numerous times here already. Wonder why they were deleted ? Any ideas ? However, note the content written by Merryn/Ferguson at the time and 'blatant cases'. ( May 2014 ). This is when GERS was good for Scotland too.

TrickyTree83

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Lighten up a little.

She wrote those articles safe in the knowledge when the No campaign was about 20+ points ahead. Obviously when things got a little bit on the tight side she's been since air brushing them from her memory. Unfortunately for her no one else has though. Which is why her about turn ( since she lives in Scotland now ) has been somewhat amusing. Every time she appears on tv earnestly spouting doom and gloom about GERS and Scotland, Twitter and Facebook are over run with people posting those comments and quotes. It undermines her credibility,

Also now that it's known that she's a 'Scotland in Union' advisor, you can be sure that too will be all over Twitter and Facebook within minutes the next time she pops up. In fact it's misleading that she wasn't introduced as such on QT last night among her credentials. She's no longer a neutral player and this should be clearly stated in future as it would've been for anyone else.

The articles have gone, but here's a screen shot of part of it from Wings. Though like I said, I've posted the Moneyweek original articles and extracts from it numerous times here already. Wonder why they were deleted ? Any ideas ? However, note the content written by Merryn/Ferguson at the time and 'blatant cases'. ( May 2014 ). This is when GERS was good for Scotland too.

Based on my track record of scientific paper quoting thus far...

I'll just leave this here for you to digest...

http://strathprints.strath.ac.uk/46792/1/FEC_36_2_2012_MidwinterA.pdf

Arguments over GERS accuracy have generally been between the SNP and the other political parties,
rather than between experts. Whilst GERS is based on estimating techniques and the UK’s public
expenditure statistics, researchers in the area have accepted that it maps out the broad magnitude of
Scotland’s fiscal position (Heald et al, 1998; MacKay and Wood, 1999; Bell and Christie, 2002), and
therefore “the kind of fiscal position from which an independent Scotland would start” (Murkens, Jones and
Keating, 2002).

Jaw dropper, scientists and academics refuting the "popular" narrative.

Now I definitely think Merryn is wrong on GERS, amongst others.

And then the mic drop moment from:

Professor Arthur Midwinter
Institute of Public Sector Accounting Research
University of Edinburgh Business School

It should also be clear that the fiscal deficit is not a problem within the UK, as it simply reflects the fiscal
flows within a unified fiscal system, which recognises higher needs in nine of the twelve nations and
regions of the UK. The Finance Minister has presented a false prospectus in his assessment of the fiscal
implications of independence.
The Scottish Government’s assessment of the fiscal implications of independence contains fundamental
errors of fact and judgement, and its claims must be subject to continuing rigorous scrutiny in the
referendum process. The structural deficit remains a fundamental problem it is unwilling to address.

Couldn't help myself, had to leave this here too...

zagubov

Here we go again. It seems that there's a category error here between disciplines we'd call sciences and those that are histories.

I sometimes notice that those arguing for historical truth-claims need to use bright colours and giant fonts and repetition, as they cannot present calm arguments that persuade and compel.

So it goes. Put me on ignore if you like. I'll manage to blink back my tears of disappointment

TrickyTree83

zagubov wrote: »

Here we go again. It seems that there's a category error here between disciplines we'd call sciences and those that are histories.

I sometimes notice that those arguing for historical truth-claims need to use bright colours and giant fonts and repetition, as they cannot present calm arguments that persuade and compel.

So it goes. Put me on ignore if you like. I'll manage to blink back my tears of disappointment

Why would I put you on ignore? I wait for responses from pro independence supporters with hope that one day you'll accept evidence based research and papers rather than your own dogmatic opinions and indy propaganda.

I feel the overwhelming need to make them bold and coloured because it seems you're all ignoring the evidence. Consistently.

There's really no need for me to even make my own argument on issues where research tells you the truth.

I'm not the type to use ignore and to date I haven't and never will.

Oh and let us just point out that your post attacks me rather than the evidence, it doesn't address the topic. I pose that this is because you are unable or unwilling to do so. I can only assume that is because your argument against it will not hold up to scrutiny.

sss555s

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

Why would I put you on ignore? I wait for responses from pro independence supporters with hope that one day you'll accept evidence based research and papers rather than your own dogmatic opinions and indy propaganda.

I feel the overwhelming need to make them bold and coloured because it seems you're all ignoring the evidence. Consistently.

There's really no need for me to even make my own argument on issues where research tells you the truth.

Oh and let us just point out that your post attacks me rather than the evidence, it doesn't address the topic. I pose that this is because you are unable or unwilling to do so. I can only assume that is because your argument against it will not hold up to scrutiny.

It's no wonder people are attacking you. You are totally spamming this thread with twisted "facts" when you have nothing to do with Scotland other than (it will cost you if Scotland gain independence) your own financial gain.

Anyone with with a vote on either side would do well to ignore your BS.

Let's look at some of your facts...

http://www.euppublishing.com/doi/pdfplus/10.3366/scot.2014.0006

Public attitudes towards migration in Scotland: less hostile than elsewhere in the UK?
A limited range of indicators of attitudes towards immigration are contained in the 2011 BSA survey (Figure 1). In each of these indicators, the general public in Scotland consistently expressed less hostile attitudes towards migration than any other UK government office region (outside of London): they were less likely to seek a halt to immigration, label the recent settling of migrants extremely bad for Britain or describe themselves as prejudiced against people of other races. Whilst these figures should be interpreted with caution (for example some people may be prejudiced but reluctant to admit it), they do provide valuable broad indications of relative opposition to migration across space. These figures suggest that the public in Scotland may indeed be less opposed to migration than is the case elsewhere in Britain.

I have highlighted some of the "facts" on the "factual" sheets you posted. The wording of the survey that you call facts seems to be non committal to me and more of an opinion.

The quote above indicates that Scotland is less opposed to immigration than the rest of the UK, bar London (confirmed in the Brexit voting results, FACT!). There are more English and Irish in Scotland but any nationality is welcome.

This all dispels your Anglophobia (in big letters) theory and you're acting like someone who is posting from "internet articles" rather than experiencing living in Scotland.