H_B Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 Burma is big enough and ugly enough to fight his own corner, I just know I'm turning hard NO's slowly, outside the house I really only interact with business people and your Anabel Goldie type Tories, the hardest groups to get through to. I have no idea why you are trying to explain to banterman what the Jimmy Reid Foundation is doing, given that he doesn't seem to be in any doubt about that. The only person who has mangled what this "evidence" is supposed to indicate is Burma. I suggest you explain to him what the JRF data actually proves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 Then you mistook my intention. You stated that Scotland currently runs at a surplus. This was a lie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burma Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 Ok. So for the avoudance of all doubt - Scotland does not presnetly run a surplus - correct? That cant be known as we dont have all the info. Had we been Independent then it appears on evidence we would currently be running at surplus. Your statement is incorrect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burma Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 You stated that Scotland currently runs at a surplus. You stated that an Independent Scotland would be required to make massive cuts or huge tax hikes. You presentef this as fact. Prove it. Be specific. Or where you lying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayrmad Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 I have no idea why you are trying to explain to banterman what the Jimmy Reid Foundation is doing, given that he doesn't seem to be in any doubt about that. The only person who has mangled what this "evidence" is supposed to indicate is Burma. I suggest you explain to him what the JRF data actually proves. I'm quite sure he knows what the data proves, he just appears to have got caught up in winning an argument, I've done it myself, errors usually follow you down that path, that's why I prefer putting my hands up at the earliest opportunity rather than becoming entrenched in a position you can't extricate yourself from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 that's why I prefer putting my hands up at the earliest opportunity rather than becoming entrenched in a position you can't extricate yourself from. This is generally wise. It appears your fellow NCC member hasn't yet realised this would be advisable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burma Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 I'm quite sure he knows what the data proves, he just appears to have got caught up in winning an argument, I've done it myself, errors usually follow you down that path, that's why I prefer putting my hands up at the earliest opportunity rather than becoming entrenched in a position you can't extricate yourself from. Nah. On the train to London and just bored and HBAdLib is an amusing toy for half an hour or so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
banterman86 Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 You stated that an Independent Scotland would be required to make massive cuts or huge tax hikes. You presentef this as fact. Prove it. Be specific. Or where you lying. Why did you respond to a fact with a hypothetical? I'm quite sure he knows what the data proves, he just appears to have got caught up in winning an argument, . believe it or not,I was genuienly curious when we were disucssing all this hidden revenue, that's why I was banging the drum on HMRC analysis for a few pages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 You stated that an Independent Scotland would be required to make massive cuts or huge tax hikes. You presentef this as fact. Prove it. Be specific. Or where you lying. Amusing as it is that you seem determined that I extricate you from the world of fail you are mired in, perhaps you can provide the direct quote. And then we can talk about that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burma Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 This is generally wise. It appears your fellow NCC member hasn't yet realised this would be advisable.Are you going to keep dodging me and refusing to answer the questions posed to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burma Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 Why did you respond to a fact with a hypothetical? . Can you prove it is a fact. Be specific Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayrmad Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 Why did you respond to a fact with a hypothetical? believe it or not,I was genuienly curious when we were disucssing all this hidden revenue, that's why I was banging the drum on HMRC analysis for a few pages. There is not much data from HMRC, I've looked, Reynard provided 1 piece and I found another piece that showed his piece was wrong, whether deliberate or not HMRC had just left out £300m here and £400m there, it was not inspiring, I think the people will need to live it to find out the whole truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
banterman86 Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 You stated that an Independent Scotland would be required to make massive cuts or huge tax hikes. You presentef this as fact. Prove it. Be specific. Or where you lying. Can you prove it is a fact. Be specific the bolded part of a quote you stated 6 minutes ago makes it clear you belive H_B attempted to presne tthat point as fact. Why did you respond to it with a hypothetical? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
banterman86 Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 There is not much data from HMRC, I've looked, Reynard provided 1 piece and I found another piece that showed his piece was wrong, whether deliberate or not HMRC had just left out £300m here and £400m there, it was not inspiring, I think the people will need to live it to find out the whole truth. yeah, i accept Wee Bully's point about red tape - it's a pity there isn;t some sort of way to do regional analysis relatively hassle free, as it would be pretty interesting. Ah well. A yes vote, and the HMRC having to do it would be fascinating - imagien if the figures were miles out of what either side expected? the ensuing budgets would be interesting! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burma Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 Perhaps you can provide the direct quote. And then we can talk about that. You forgetting which lies you have told? As long as you can sell the drastic cuts in services, or the massive increase in borrowing to fund current spending to the electorate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayrmad Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 Is there anyone that disputes the picture painted by the figures presented by the Jimmy Reid Foundation? Does anyone dispute that an Independent Scotland could have increased spending in 2011/12 and still borrowed less than Westminster borrowed in our name? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 You forgetting which lies you have told? Uh huh. That was based on Scotland establishing an oil fund. Whilst we currently run at a deficit based on the GERS figures. So to run an oil fund, Scotland would have to either borrow to meet the deficit, or cut spending. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burma Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 the bolded part of a quote you stated 6 minutes ago makes it clear you belive H_B attempted to presne tthat point as fact. Why did you respond to it with a hypothetical? Easily cleared up. At the time I believed it was a hypothetical statement. Now based on his haverings of the last twenty.minutes irs apparent he was presenting it as fact. Had I believed it was fact then.I would have requested evidence...which I am now doing. Im sure HBAdLib is touched by your concern Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 This then provoked your blatant lie below :- "Why would either of those be neccessary when current spending levels result in a surplus?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 What is hypothetical about the statement that "current spending levels result in a surplus?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.