Reynard
-
Posts
6,538 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
5
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Reynard
-
-
It's not easy to use the HMRC figures, they're data is only experimental(1st time they've broken it down) and they don't give you a full breakdown of revenues generated by oil, for example out of the 2 revenues they breakdown 1 has Scotland providing under 70% of the revenue and 1 has Scotland providing 80%, it makes me slightly skeptical as there's no explanation given,I'll do the best with what you gave me.
I prefer to paint a fair picture rather than 1 that aims to help/hinder either side.
Yes it is.
I simply used the exact same way of doing the figures as presented to us, and widely accepted and used by the NCC, if this is now deemed to be "unfair" then too bad. This was the exact same method employed by Swinney and co and which is currently being used in plenty of SNP literature. I think its only fair I did it the same way to give a decent comparison over the period of devolution.
Is using figues covering a period of time up until 2007 as the fat minster did recently and thus missing out the great banking crash more to your liking? Is this the sort of "fair picture" you are clinging to? Or do you think he isn't worthy of chastising for massaging figures to suit his argument? It would appear to me that the nationalist clown collective seem to be intensely relaxed about these things yet get all tense and uptight as soon as something turns up that causes puckered fundaments all round.
0 -
The SNP aren't my saviour, they'll not be around long in their current guise post independence, I'll get round to your figures but it most certainly include more than your 2 figures for each year.
Hopefully you'll use both sources like I did. The GERS figures are widely pointed and laughed at BTW which is why I decided to include the actual HMRC results. The HMRC are legally obliged to provide the most accurate information that they can as part of their remit, GERS is politically manipulated.
It's amazing how the 9.9%/9.3% thing appears in many SNP documents yet when I apply the exact same methodology running over the course of the lifetime of the devolved parliament that suddenly they become "no good".
0 -
I won't use any other figures, unfortunately for you your approach of using a fraction of the data available whether deliberate or not is the approach of a financially illiterate or deceitful person, my opinion varies on which 1 you are but I'llput far more weighting on deceitful.
I used the exact same method so beloved of the nationalists when they picked up the ball and tried to run with it regarding the 9.9% of tax compared to "just" 9.3% of expenditure (which is significantly more as I demonstrated for the economically illiterate NCC).
I take it when you are bitch whining about me that you are including your new found saviours the SNP in the same whine? If not, why not?
0 -
Didn't even know I had. I dont dot anyone so either you are lying or it was an accident.
And what truth are you on about ?
The fact that the UK runs a bigger deficit than Scotland ?
ETA- just checked and yes I did. My mistake
....As for knowing the truth..... Like your sig so proudly displays.... You don't really do figures do you??
I just did two separate sets of figures both sourced from original material.
What is it that you dispute exactly?
All the figures are Exactly as given to us by both the Scottish government and HMRC.
Maybe Ayrmad can come up with a completely different set of results from the exact same sourced material as he has promised do? We all await his efforts.
0 -
Someone was on Radio Scotland this morning slating the SNP for cherry picking a period of 1997-2007 for some economic figures that "prove" Scots would be better off out of the Union.
Apparently if you use the last 30 years figures it proves the very opposite.
not sure what it related to - something in the White Paper.
Yeah they deliberately left out the banking system crash and debt crisis that they were championing all along as it helped to destroy their own argument. Its perfectly clear from the figures provided that the SNP are simply once again lying to the people of Scotland.
The figures I've given for the lifetime of the parliament show that even in that time and with the full gas and oil revenues that Scotland is still being subsidised by the UK. I even used the woefully politically biased GERS figures as well as the HMRC figures (which they are legally obliged to produce as accurately as possible) so that the NCC in here could compare and contrast. All I got was abuse for it instead of some thanks for taking the trouble.
I guess the nationalists in here that constantly complain about the level of debate will simply pull up their fellow travellers and give them a stern talking to for lowering the tone? No? Oh well.
I suppose" I'm Brian" could actually be right in his assertion that p[eople were coming in here looking for some facts and figures and were simply put off by the ad hominem attacks on individuals. I suppose we have to put up with stupid people in life at times, it's just that bit tougher when they all support scottish independence.
0 -
Identified public spending UK 2012-13
£560bn identified UK
£456bn England (81.49%)
£54bn Scotland (9.64%)
£30bn Wales (5.33%)
£20bn N Ireland (3.54%)
unidentified public spending
£114bn UK 2012-13 allocated on population %
£96bn England (84%)
£9.5bn Scotland (8.3%)
£5.5bn Wales (4.8%)
£3.3bn N Ireland (3.3%)
Total identified and unidentified spending
£552bn England (81.86%) <----lower than it's 84% population
£63.5bn Scotland (9.42%) <----higher than it's 8.3% population
£35.5bn Wales (5.26%)
£23.3bn N Ireland (3.46%)
could always be better of course, but they'd just piss it away on shite anyway.
Was there any special reason why AUFC90 red dotted the original post?
Doesn't he like to know the truth?
0 -
Stunning stuff from romney again
Thanks. We know how much the NCC enjoy their percentage type statistics. The 9.3%/9.9% seems to appear regularly in all their literature but according to Ayrmad they only become "meaningless" when someone other than a happy clapper produces them.
0 -
But it does have thousands of members, not all who will contribute. Many will read., and many already have contributed, albeit not regularly
BT stuff and countless links to the pro union press are posted. It is still being put into the domain, whether anyone agrees with it or not. It's then up to you and the like to prove it correct. Isn't that what discussion is about? Regardless of the ramblings of half wits like you and me, it is good that people who don't engage can see both points of view. It's what I always say to people. Research both sides and make and decision based on what you think is right, Most major things tend to end up here.
Define reasonably heavily. Not that long ago you were predicting 75% No vote. Like the polls your predictions are narrowing. 2% either way IMO.
If you care to trawl back you can find quotes from me that are critical of the Yes campaign. That said it is in a damned better position and a lot more well organised than no.
Yeah, I'm sure they flock to this part of the forum rather than the football bit they are actually here for. It's still a small number of people regardless.
It's not up to anyone here to prove anything. They can be asked to prove stuff, sometimes they do and sometimes they don't. Given the fact the bulk of folk have already made up their minds then its not going to make a jot of a difference. If you take it seriously then you take it seriously, not my problem.
I have never once predicted 75% no vote. It will be around sixty odd percent I'd reckon. If yes get to 40 they will be doing pretty well anyway. The polls are not narrowing at all yet.
I'm critical of both campaigns they are both utterly shit.
0 -
Reynard do you not have a job or something to do, your never off of these forums, bore off with your shite.
Vote YES
I was just helping out with some facts and figures and did it in the same percentage terms so beloved of out clown collective here. I'm sure these will be welcomed to the debate. If you don't like/understand them then simply move on like the bulk of the yessirs are going to anyway.
Apparently Mr Parp finds these percentage figures abusive.
Its my lunchtime, I also work for myself so I can do whatever I like, whenever I like.
0 -
Scotland will also have to fund it's institutions and its own tax collecting regime as well as various other things that we currently share or spread costs on. I take it the white paper didn't get around to telling us estimated costs of this? They should do as it's us that will be paying for it all.
0 -
Scotland running a deficit shocker
WTF ????Is this what the unionists have been reduced to ?
Unluckily for them, the UK runs with an even bigger defecit.
Scotlands deficit spending is currently being funded by the UK's very low interest rates remember. Scotland certainly wouldn't have those which makes the debt and deficit costs that bit more expensive to our taxpayers if we leave.
0 -
Identified public spending UK 2012-13
£560bn identified UK£456bn England (81.49%)
£54bn Scotland (9.64%)
£30bn Wales (5.33%)
£20bn N Ireland (3.54%)
unidentified public spending
£114bn UK 2012-13 allocated on population %£96bn England (84%)
£9.5bn Scotland (8.3%)
£5.5bn Wales (4.8%)
£3.3bn N Ireland (3.3%)
Total identified and unidentified spending£552bn England (81.86%) <----lower than it's 84% population
£63.5bn Scotland (9.42%) <----higher than it's 8.3% population
£35.5bn Wales (5.26%)
£23.3bn N Ireland (3.46%)could always be better of course, but they'd just piss it away on shite anyway.
-1 -
remember to allow for inflation
0 -
I've looked at all the numbers, I'll post them all in more detail later so everyone can the levels financial illiteracy you're displaying on here.
Look forward to seeing how that goes for you.
0 -
Work out the numbers including the UK deficit then, posting numbers like that means diddlysquat.
well it shows the number of times since devolution where Scotland has actually contributed the other way as well as the times the Barnett formula has worked in its favour doesnt it? So, while yoiu maynot like it very much, those are the figures in percentage terms so beloved of the nationalists.
If you fancy trawling through everything Ive given you the links. If you want to spend a few hours doing it then fill your boots.
0 -
Work out the numbers including the UK deficit then, posting numbers like that means diddlysquat.
feel free
taxes collected in Scotland
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/statistics/receipts.htm
scottish governments version of events
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Statistics/Browse/Economy/GERS/RelatedAreas/LRfiscalbalances2013
public spending in scotland
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Statistics/Browse/Economy/GERS/RelatedAreas/LRfiscalbalances2013
The figures are all there in cash terms if you can be arsed. looking.
0 -
1999/00 ... 8.3% ... 9.6% ... rUK subsidised Sco ***
2000/01 ... 8.6% ... 9.5% ... rUK subsidised Sco ***
2001/02 ... 8.8% ... 9.5% ... rUK subsidised Sco ***
2002/03 ... 8.9% ... 9.7% ... rUK subsidised Sco ***
2003/04 ... 8.7% ... 9.7% ... rUK subsidised Sco ***
2004/05 ... 8.8% ... 9.5% ... rUK subsidised Sco ***
2005/06 ... 9.5% ... 9.5% ... neutral
2006/07 ... 9.3% ... 9.6% ... rUK subsidised Sco ***
2007/08 ... 9.2% ... 9.6% ... rUK subsidised Sco ***
2008/09 ... 10.2% ... 9.3% ... Sco subsidised rUK
2009/10 ... 9.2% ... 9.2% ... neutral
2010/11 ... 9.4% ... 9.2% ... Sco subsidised rUK
2011/12 ... 9.8% ... 9.3% ... Sco subsidised rUK
2012/13 ... 9.0% ... ??? ...
These are the figures from HMRC
The final figures are not yet published for the last one but we already know the amount raised in percentage terms. With oil revenue having plummetted from a near record high the previous year it's a fair assumption to make that rUK subsidised Scotland.
0 -
Are you having a giraffe, that and international law is all you've brought to the debate, between you and Reynard you've informed of the square root of hee haw.
Answer 1 simple question with a straight yes or no.
Did we subsidise rUK to the tune of ~£2.5billion in 2011/12?
Possibly. Although according to the much trumpeted 9.9% contribution by Scotland,that figure in cash is 56.9billion whereas the measly 9.3% of government spending is 64.5billion
The rUK has subsidised Scotland in the latest set of GERS to come out in March though as oil revenue is down significantly nearly half the previous year which is how Barnett is supposed to work.
1999/00 ... 8.8% ... 9.6% ... rUK subsidised Sco ***
2000/01 ... 9.1% ... 9.5% ... rUK subsidised Sco ***
2001/02 ... 9.3% ... 9.5% ... rUK subsidised Sco ***
2002/03 ... 9.3% ... 9.7% ... rUK subsidised Sco ***
2003/04 ... 9.1% ... 9.7% ... rUK subsidised Sco ***
2004/05 ... 9.2% ... 9.5% ... rUK subsidised Sco ***
2005/06 ... 9.8% ... 9.5% ... Sco subsidised rUK
2006/07 ... 9.6% ... 9.6% ... neutral
2007/08 ... 9.5% ... 9.6% ... rUK subsidised Sco ***
2008/09 ... 10.4% ... 9.3% ... Sco subsidised rUK
2009/10 ... 9.3% ... 9.2% ... Sco subsidised rUK
2010/11 ... 9.5% ... 9.2% ... Sco subsidised rUK
2011/12 ... 9.9% ... 9.3% ... Sco subsidised rUK
These are from the various GERS reports since devolution according to Scottish government figures
0 -
It's a bit more than that, but nearer the time I am sure the numbers will get greater. Perhaps it isn't the be all and end all of the referendum campaigns, but If it helps people make up their minds then it's worthwhile.
Whether the P and B banter and argument is percieved as helpful and accurate or not isn't really the issue for me. What it does do is provide plenty of links to information that can help people make their minds up.
Glad to see you have finally realised your standing in the said forum.
You seem to be sure of this and repeat it ad nauseum. Ultimately you may be proved correct, but there is another eight and a bit months of a Better Together campaign that is falling apart at the seams and getting more and more desperate with every passing day. As time goes on it will be less likely they can repair the damage. The only thing I will say is, if No do ultimately win, it will not be as massive a victory as you have consistently made out.
A Tory campaign, directed from London, and fronted by Labour in Scotland was always going to end up a disjointed mess.
It's still just a football forum with a handful of regulars as you well know. Maybe people will flock here "as it gets closer", or maybe they won't.
The links are generally wings bfs and newsnut. I'm quite sure most folk can find their way directly there regardless. The only people that send links from BT are Enrico and a handful of others when they are wanting some sort of groupthink reaction to perceived wrong.
I have no interest in what anyone else thinks of me in here.
I am absolutely certain of it yes. The nationalists are losing this referendum and will lose reasonably heavily in September although as the dont knows fall either way their polling will increase from the high twenties or low thirties that its currently at. Thats an inevitability. The No lot will increase too of course.
I don't think either campaign has covered itself in much glory here, but you would never admit to the shambles of the yes one.So be it.
What is being presented to me in the white paper merely confirms that I have to vote no.
0 -
The NO campaign in general have a similar MO, hope you all keep it up.
TBH they could all go on holiday right now and do something more worthwhile as it's not going to affect the result one way or another.Yes will lose pretty heavily.
You have fallen into the same hole as that Colkitto half wit who seemed to think every time someone failed to happy clap the SNP stance on things then a fairy died or a bundle of yes votes occurred or something stupid like that.
0 -
And I hope Reynard and co keep it up to the last minute, the longer they keep it up the less they'll encourage swithering No's and Don't Know's to actually turn up at the polling booths.
I'm expecting at least 35/45% of the population eligible to vote to vote YES, I've no idea how many will actually vote No but I'm confident we'll be an independent country as a result of this referendum.
There's about a dozen folk post in here. I doubt it's having the worldwide impact you think.
And lets face it, genuine don't knows, of who there are very few, will also see the idiocy of Burma and Baxter and Enrico etc etc so while you may hate some of the stuff I say here, or all of it. It's going to make absolutely no impact whatsoever, anywhere. This is a dark musty corner of a football forum filled with half wits.
Yes have already lost this referendum anyway. It was unwinnable right from the start and their lack of any sort of reasonable argument to bring forward has left them preaching to their own choir.
0 -
We will get.into the EU. End of discussion.
After the European elections the spotlight will be.on the UKs membership.
Meaning what?
Its looking like the referendum bill won't even make it through the Lords. I think that would suit Cameron too.
0 -
I would still have a British passport though.
If you chose to.
0 -
They wont veto, u know it. Thriving, developed Northern European country with vast oil and fish reserves. Ahhh f**k it, gimme Slovenia
Spain.can find somewhere else to fish.
I suspect they won't. But there's absolutely no telling how things might pan out with their own little local difficulty.
But you are quite right, the EU will absolutely want control of the fishing again which was the price the UK paid for membership and no doubt it will want control of the oil too which has always been the main sticking point for Norwegian membership. They have gone so far with the EU and no firther as they want full control over their resources. Which is entirely the right thing to do.
0
....
Latest Polls and Latest Odds
in The Politics Forum
Posted
Well, the NCC seem to accept one year of the figures which I included, so you have to assume that all the rest should be accepted too as they were arrived at in the same way. Unless you are actually sayig that the 9.9/9.3 % figures were in some way bogus? If thats the case you better get on to clown central and tell the folks there who have included it in shitloads of yes literature that their figures are in some way "skewed".