AUFC90 Posted January 11, 2014 Share Posted January 11, 2014 (edited) Was there any special reason why AUFC90 red dotted the original post? Doesn't he like to know the truth? 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?? Edited January 11, 2014 by AUFC90 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reynard Posted January 11, 2014 Share Posted January 11, 2014 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burma Posted January 11, 2014 Share Posted January 11, 2014 (edited) 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. Your figures fail to take into account Scotlands payment for debt it did not take nor need. I have went over GERS figures for the last 32 years and as I have explained in great detail on the economic thread your conclusions are simplistic and wrong. You cherry pick and ignore in order to fit your agenda Edited January 11, 2014 by Burma 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayrmad Posted January 11, 2014 Share Posted January 11, 2014 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. 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. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burma Posted January 11, 2014 Share Posted January 11, 2014 (edited) 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.It's similar to HB's attempts over the last day or so to cherrypick and misquote in order to prove THEIR point as opposed to the point that they're quotee was attempting to make.The unionist tactic is very very clear now. Alter, cherrypick, misconstrue, lie, confuse, and fudge. Anything to prevent actual debate Edited January 11, 2014 by Burma 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peleus Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 It's similar to HB's attempts over the last day or so to cherrypick and misquote in order to prove THEIR point as opposed to the point that they're quotee was attempting to make. Spot on. I guess they keep changing things just to make it to their advantage. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reynard Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 (edited) 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? Edited January 13, 2014 by Reynard 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayrmad Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 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? 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. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reynard Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUFC90 Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 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". Did you adress Burmas posts regarding your figures ? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayrmad Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 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". 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. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reynard Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayrmad Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 (edited) 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. No it isn't, there's a £1.9billion difference in total tax revenues for the period between that document and another HMRC document. My link: http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/statistics/prt/og-stats.pdf Your link: http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/statistics/receipts/disagg-stats.pdf There are also some glaring mistakes in their tax receipts tables where some years are £5billion out going by their figures. FYI I intend to take my data back to 1980/81 if possible as that was what was shown in 1 of the documents you linked to. I'm not interested in what way Salmond or rUK spin the data, I look for myself if the data is there. You may think that the HMRC will be above board, I don't at this particularly sensitive time, I actually study the numbers rather than just regurgitate them. Edited January 14, 2014 by ayrmad 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Owsley Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 A very informative article highlighting the different approach in Norway to their oil good fortune. Even if Reynard's figures are not in any way skewed, I'm not going to cry about being subsidised by a bunch of incompetents that can't manage the greatest resource a country could wish for, especially given the lies we were fed about it's lifespan. I'm damn sure an independent Scotland will put that money to good use for future generations. http://archive.is/cqvda. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reynard Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 A very informative article highlighting the different approach in Norway to their oil good fortune. Even if Reynard's figures are not in any way skewed, I'm not going to cry about being subsidised by a bunch of incompetents that can't manage the greatest resource a country could wish for, especially given the lies we were fed about it's lifespan. I'm damn sure an independent Scotland will put that money to good use for future generations. http://archive.is/cqvda. 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". 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Owsley Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 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". OK, that's fine. I think we deserve it. They take our oil and fritter it away. No rainy day fund for them. Time for Scotland, if we are a proper nation and not just hanging on coat-tails, to manage it ourselves and if we f**k it up we'll only have ourselves to blame. Maybe check out the west coast waters too when Trident is long gone, you never know your Donald Duck. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayrmad Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 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". YES don't need to argue with the figures in GERS, the figures prove their case, you just don't know why it proves their case or you wish to ignore the reasons why it proves their case 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reynard Posted January 15, 2014 Share Posted January 15, 2014 YES don't need to argue with the figures in GERS, the figures prove their case, you just don't know why it proves their case or you wish to ignore the reasons why it proves their case I showed you why they are talking utter bullshit. You had a wee tantrum about the figures until you realised I was using the exact same ones that Swinney does when he talks his pish. Now you promised you were going to produce your own version from the same source. Why didn't you? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayrmad Posted January 15, 2014 Share Posted January 15, 2014 I showed you why they are talking utter bullshit. You had a wee tantrum about the figures until you realised I was using the exact same ones that Swinney does when he talks his pish. Now you promised you were going to produce your own version from the same source. Why didn't you? Don't worry,I'm nearly there, there's more work involved than you seem to think. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICTChris Posted January 15, 2014 Share Posted January 15, 2014 Article from University of Reading Politics blog https://blogs.reading.ac.uk/readingpolitics/2014/01/15/scotlands-independence-referendum-do-we-already-know-the-result/ 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.