H_B Posted June 5, 2014 Share Posted June 5, 2014 Yes they did: "The Treasury goes further, pointing to studies by the Institute for Fiscal Studies and the London School of Economics, which calculate that to establish a policy department would cost £15m. Applying this, says the analysis, to the "180 departments" the Scottish Government says it would need in an independent Scotland, this "could see Scottish taxpayers fork out £2.7bn" - around £1000 per household. Danny Alexander, Chief Secretary to the Treasury who will launch Whitehall's final analysis paper in Scotland, said: "The Scottish Government is trying to leave the UK but it won't tell anyone how much the set-up surcharge is for an independent Scotland." http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/set-up-cost-of-independence-1000-a-family-says-treasury.24329010 I'll await the usual deflective pish from you. Oh dear. Really cringing for you here... this is reaching Dee Gas levels. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-27557547 "It came after the UK Treasury published analysis which put the cost at £1.5bn." "In its analysis, the Treasury said that the costs could be nearly twice as much as its own £1.5bn estimate, if based on a different study by the London School of Economics." I would say thanks for playing, but it wasn't much of a game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted June 5, 2014 Share Posted June 5, 2014 When are the Scottish government publishing their figures Confidemus? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the jambo-rocker Posted June 5, 2014 Share Posted June 5, 2014 They are one of the many to have reported the utter shambles Swinney has ended up in here. A true Michael Howard moment for him. Great work. Here's a verbatim account of the complete fool of himself Swinney made. No doubt the NCC will gather for a group hug to berate the BBC for outrageously trying to get a Nat to answer a question. http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/john-swinney-refuses-thirteen-times-3618528 I'll gladly concede that Swinney is not the quickest hobbler in the Paralympic 100m, but I am curious to what makes you think either side or anyone for that matter can make rational guess at how much it would cost? This is of course after the referendum is settled without determining the share of the assets, the share of debt, how many businesses will or will not shit it, and not expect it to be spun that 'too high = too much, not worth it, and too low = must be lying'. We've seen how quick the media were to jump on Salmond's comments on Putin. Fucked if you do, fucked if you don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted June 5, 2014 Share Posted June 5, 2014 I'll gladly concede that Swinney is not the quickest hobbler in the Paralympic 100m, but I am curious to what makes you think either side or anyone for that matter can make rational guess at how much it would cost? The share of the assets and debts is a complete red herring. this isn't the "net" cost to Scotland that is being requested here. It's the start up costs associated with establishing your own infrastructure. And of course it can be estimated. the SNP have already done this. They just aren't telling us what their estimate was, other than of course when a whistleblower gets a hold of an internal memo that outlines costs - for example re the tax collection start up estimate. All of what you say is true of revenuies also. Yet, conveniently the SNP have been very quick to have a guess at how much will be coming in (including making some laughably optimistic guesses about future oil revenue.) yet they are completely refusing to give the Scottish people the analysis they have carried out on start up costs. Again, the rampant double standards of Yes voters here (and I'm not talking about you specifically) comes out. Were the UK government to say "We have analysis on this, but we're not telling you what it is" they would be being absolutely panned by the usual subjects. The SNP refuses to tell us what their own estimates are, despite having them for some time now, and the nodding dog Kool-aid Krew just say "ah well, they know best eh?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Confidemus Posted June 5, 2014 Share Posted June 5, 2014 Oh dear. Really cringing for you here... this is reaching Dee Gas levels. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-27557547 "It came after the UK Treasury published analysis which put the cost at £1.5bn." "In its analysis, the Treasury said that the costs could be nearly twice as much as its own £1.5bn estimate, if based on a different study by the London School of Economics." I would say thanks for playing, but it wasn't much of a game. Hmm, I wonder who I trust, Professor Patrick Dunleavy or a pedant who lives in his Mum's attic. But you've quoted the BBC so that MUST be correct. Swing and a miss, flower. http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/westminster-claims-are-ludicrous-confirms-expert-researcher/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hearthammer Posted June 5, 2014 Share Posted June 5, 2014 For the undecided, vote "no" & you have the good people of this particular parish issuing the rallying cry for what you can expect in the future in this fine country. www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmGjiokfQ2A www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmGjiokfQ2A Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted June 5, 2014 Share Posted June 5, 2014 Hmm, I wonder who I trust, Professor Patrick Dunleavy Uhh, sorry to pish on your chips champ, but you claimed the Treasury "put the cost at setting up an iScotland at an eye watering £2.7 billion." This is a lie. It's ATOS all over again isn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Confidemus Posted June 5, 2014 Share Posted June 5, 2014 Uhh, sorry to pish on your chips champ, but you claimed the Treasury "put the cost at setting up an iScotland at an eye watering £2.7 billion." This is a lie. It's ATOS all over again isn't it? What part of this are you struggling with? Are you saying that this story, reported in the MSM, was false? That Prof Dunleavy was telling porkies? You'd think I'd be bothered about the ATOS thing after you brought up for the 168th time wouldn't you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted June 5, 2014 Share Posted June 5, 2014 Are you saying that this story, reported in the MSM, was false? No, I'm saying you struggle to read basic sentences. Hence why you have, yet again, made a complete tit of yourself by misrepresenting the Treasury's estimated figure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Confidemus Posted June 5, 2014 Share Posted June 5, 2014 No, I'm saying you struggle to read basic sentences. Hence why you have, yet again, made a complete tit of yourself by misrepresenting the Treasury's estimated figure. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-27611563 Pedantry and semantics. You are wholly wrong. You just can't admit it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the jambo-rocker Posted June 5, 2014 Share Posted June 5, 2014 The share of the assets and debts is a complete red herring. this isn't the "net" cost to Scotland that is being requested here. It's the start up costs associated with establishing your own infrastructure. And of course it can be estimated. the SNP have already done this. They just aren't telling us what their estimate was, other than of course when a whistleblower gets a hold of an internal memo that outlines costs - for example re the tax collection start up estimate. All of what you say is true of revenuies also. Yet, conveniently the SNP have been very quick to have a guess at how much will be coming in (including making some laughably optimistic guesses about future oil revenue.) yet they are completely refusing to give the Scottish people the analysis they have carried out on start up costs. Again, the rampant double standards of Yes voters here (and I'm not talking about you specifically) comes out. Were the UK government to say "We have analysis on this, but we're not telling you what it is" they would be being absolutely panned by the usual subjects. The SNP refuses to tell us what their own estimates are, despite having them for some time now, and the nodding dog Kool-aid Krew just say "ah well, they know best eh?" I was really thinking in terms of something like the RoS for example. Technically everything they Land Register is done through the UK government, but I imagine in the event of a Yes vote it should go to the Scottish Government, as would the buildings the civil servant work or transferred over and all that jazz. I imagine that with there already being quite a few governments areas devolved to Holyrood, it should not be as high as this £1.5 billion figure IMO. I totally agree on the double standards issue. I remember quite a while back that people were moaning because Westminster were staying tight lipped over the EU and currency. I kinda hoped there would have been an estimate of some kind, whether they had just the cost will be 'this and that' depending on if 'this and that' happens, as it certainly is a better thing than not saying anything at all and ducking the question. I would imagine that an answer will come out soon however, as I think even a vague one would keep it from being as costly to their campaign if they didn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted June 5, 2014 Share Posted June 5, 2014 I totally agree on the double standards issue. I remember quite a while back that people were moaning because Westminster were staying tight lipped over the EU and currency. I kinda hoped there would have been an estimate of some kind, whether they had just the cost will be 'this and that' depending on if 'this and that' happens, as it certainly is a better thing than not saying anything at all and ducking the question. I would imagine that an answer will come out soon however, as I think even a vague one would keep it from being as costly to their campaign if they didn't. Well, the problem they have, and the reason Swinney was absolutely harpooned on it, is that the leaked memo shows they have these figures. They just aren't telling us what they are. So they have no fallback on "we haven't got round to costing this". Because they have. It really is exactly the same as the legal advice. Resorting to "We're just not telling you what our stuff says" is absolutely disgraceful and they are rightly being destroyed on it. I feel sorry for the Kool Aid Krew who are having to grin through the embarrassment. It's what happens when you tie yurself to a party that fails so often like this, and why you should be objective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint4life Posted June 5, 2014 Share Posted June 5, 2014 After watching this video, if you still wish to vote no, then fair enough. This is a 36 minute presentation discussing the economic case for indepence, please at least hear it out https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1W8cKHcZn60 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted June 5, 2014 Share Posted June 5, 2014 After watching this video, if you still wish to vote no, then fair enough. This is a 36 minute presentation discussing the economic case for indepence, please at least hear it out https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1W8cKHcZn60 Produced by whom? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reynard Posted June 5, 2014 Share Posted June 5, 2014 Produced by whom? Business for Scotland Oh dear god! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
git-intae-thum Posted June 5, 2014 Share Posted June 5, 2014 Business for Scotland Oh dear god! Now if it was the CBI trying to produce any facts or figures, I would see the joke. Business for Scotland have always been open about their allegiances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Confidemus Posted June 5, 2014 Share Posted June 5, 2014 I see. I understand. OK troops, just so we know where we stand, moving forward, if any organisation are on the Yes side, they are not to be trusted, their figures are fallible, their claims ludicrious and their sources to be made fun of. BetterTogether organisations are fine and upstanding. That about the size of it H_B and Reynard? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Confidemus Posted June 6, 2014 Share Posted June 6, 2014 Update on the new Killie poll: Yes 92 (62.16%) No 30 (20.27%) Completely Undecided 6 (4.05%) Unsure but leaning towards Yes 17 (11.49%) Unsure but leaning towards No 3 (2.03%) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tryfield Posted June 6, 2014 Share Posted June 6, 2014 Update on the new Killie poll: Yes 92 (62.16%) No 30 (20.27%) Completely Undecided 6 (4.05%) Unsure but leaning towards Yes 17 (11.49%) Unsure but leaning towards No 3 (2.03%) I wonder who the ex- Johhny Walker employees blame for their job "movement" to wherever. I think it'd be interesting to see who they blame. I did post a link to a petition to save Johnny Walkers on here, general nonsense. Obviously it failed, but I did try after being made redundant myself in 2010. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blaven Posted June 6, 2014 Share Posted June 6, 2014 I wonder who the ex- Johhny Walker employees blame for their job "movement" to wherever. I think it'd be interesting to see who they blame. I did post a link to a petition to save Johnny Walkers on here, general nonsense. Obviously it failed, but I did try after being made redundant myself in 2010. You seem to have a bad case of Stockholm Syndrome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.