tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1603438996450817644.post1515008581948619523..comments2024-01-12T01:56:21.933-08:00Comments on chokka blog: The Power of PersistenceKevin Haguehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14587343060415859159noreply@blogger.comBlogger49125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1603438996450817644.post-3836281652619753582015-12-20T18:15:30.675-08:002015-12-20T18:15:30.675-08:00@Anonymous
Doesn't make him wrong though. It ...@Anonymous<br /><br />Doesn't make him wrong though. It would be nice if you could actually find faults in the article and correct them rather than making a cheap dig. Tell Kev what he got wrong and he will correct it.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01329280919041952141noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1603438996450817644.post-1247781644325169182015-12-20T04:49:03.590-08:002015-12-20T04:49:03.590-08:00Trying to rationalize why people think differently...Trying to rationalize why people think differently is an impossible task.<br /><br />Denigrating them for their opinions on the basis that your argument is the only credible one is a losing strategy. <br /><br />Rejection is a difficult thing to cope with, Kevin. Just admit it, you cannot accept that no matter how many graphs, insults or downright smears you employ, the people you seek to 'persuade' are moving further away from you.<br /><br />This latest blog is another in a long list of similar blogs dressed up as presenting 'facts' but really saying that anyone voting for independence or the SNP is not as clever as you.<br /><br />Professor Tompkins judgement me be in question if this is the level of argument he is relying on.<br /><br />The SNP government rejected all your offers of 'help' didn't they? <br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1603438996450817644.post-40396341201100477912015-11-25T11:41:59.174-08:002015-11-25T11:41:59.174-08:00Dointhebiz, your points would be much credible if ...Dointhebiz, your points would be much credible if the Scottish Government - which after all wanted to put across the best possible economic case for independence - had based its white paper on them, but it didn't. Just didn't. The white paper, not Kevin, allocated 2% for defence, on the basis that Scotland would seek to remain in NATO, and nothing in the SG defence paper suggests that costs could be much less than that anyway. Maybe that was as nonsensical as the white paper. VAT on Police Scotland is a typical red herring - a consequence entirely of the making of the SG, and one they knew about in advance. And examples such as steel - are you promising that an iScotland would subsidise unprofitable industries forever, or are you seriously suggesting they are only unprofitable "because Westminster"? And really, would you cut the tax rate on oil, which I assume you feel is too high? The companies would love you, but have you worked out what it would do to tax revenues (assuming NS oil is ever profitable again)? <br /><br />If anything bad is by (your) definition solely a consequence of being in the UK, and you will not countenance a single potential downside to cutting yourself adrift from it, then no matter how many words you write your argument is still feeble. There may indeed be current in-UK costs which iScotland would no longer need to fund, but there will also be a significant number of new costs of independence, both capital and revenue, which need to be set out in the balance sheet against any savings. But then, the SNP narrative promises there IS such a thing as a free lunch, and suggesting that a tab might have to be picked up at all, let alone that it might be a big one, doesn't fit into that picture at all, does it?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1603438996450817644.post-88856811959915755832015-11-25T08:08:10.275-08:002015-11-25T08:08:10.275-08:00Dointhebiz, the key difference between Wings Over ...Dointhebiz, the key difference between Wings Over Somerset and Chokkablog is that the fake Rev seeks to justify a predetermined position, whereas Kevin Hague is only against the SNP and their independence agenda because the facts led him to that position. Which of these sounds more credible to you?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01329280919041952141noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1603438996450817644.post-49184976708775582902015-11-25T02:46:37.304-08:002015-11-25T02:46:37.304-08:00Dointhebiz has a damn cheek to accuse anyone of &q...Dointhebiz has a damn cheek to accuse anyone of "SNP Baaaad" - the standard response from anyone whose entire mindset is "UK Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaad". His entire rant reads like a quote-a-thon from Wangs Over Bath. Thank god Scotland is now so politically energised and engaged, eh.<br /><br />It's not Kevin's job to make the economic case for an independendent Scotland. If you're arguing for it, you damn well make it. Go on, find £8bn or so just to get us to where we are now. Be specific. Let's see your sums. And if you want credibility, factor in some of the downside risks of separation. Good luck, given the SNP could only find about £0.5bn.<br /><br />In my weaker moments I actually wish it had been Yes last year, because only then would the truth have sunk in.Andy Thomsponnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1603438996450817644.post-14083745517190722452015-11-15T10:43:55.098-08:002015-11-15T10:43:55.098-08:00Hmm...I'm afraid that your 2% comment is disin...<br /><br /><br /> Hmm...I'm afraid that your 2% comment is disingenuous nonsense Kev, how many of our 28 NATO members spent 2% GDP on defense in 2015? Or - in fact - ever? "Defense expenditure as a % of GDP 2015, UK 2.1%, 22 other members spent between 0.5% [lowest] - 1.9% [highest]<br /><br />http://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/pdf_2015_06/20150622_PR_CP_2015_093-v2.pdf<br /><br />This is a worry for me, when you present something as "fact" which you know it not to be? Are our GERS figures "fact" too then?<br /><br />"The Cuthbert’s quote from 2012 in the comment above - they were happy to rely on GERS by then".<br /><br />No they weren't, they did, however, accept that they had been improved, but in no way do they accept that they are perfect, they have stated they will continue to push for a better set of accounts based on the UKs "Pink Paper".<br /><br />While I fully accept the principle of "the need to *retain* a single UK National Grid", this does not explain the £40ml pa costs for connection, IF, [as they claim] it is about our geography or usage that incurs these costs, perhaps you could explain why these same costs aren't incurred by connection from places like Cornwall? In fact: <br /><br />"A power station located at Lands’ End would receive the maximum subsidy of £5.80 per KW while Longannet faces charges of £17.15 per KW despite the fact that Cornwall’s entire population is under 500,000 and Lands’ End is 316 miles away from London. In contrast, Longannet is in the central belt of Scotland and is 421 miles away from London".<br /><br />"GERS doesn't allocate any costs to us for "infrastructure that doesn't benefit us one iota", Indeed, GERS are a Scottish set of accounts based on whatever figures London present us with, albeit 60% block grant and 40% retained by the UK gov to spend on our behalf, it is that 40% retained and spent on our behalf that I question, not GERS [they are what they are, warts n'all]. IF, for example, Westminster decided to deduct our % for HS2 which [like the Olympics] benefit Scotland not "one iota" We have no say in how our money is spent on UK [London] infrastructure.<br /><br />You see what we're doing here is arguing over the "status quo", you say HoL [£10ml pa] but without pointing out that in an independent Scotland there'd be no HoL and no HoC either, not once have you in any way pointed out the "savings" but instead simply focused on flawed accounts and minimal savings? Why?..."of course Scotland could be a wealthy independent country",...In your own words Kev, but then fail to point out how? You have simply proved that you couldn't actually give a damn and instead choose to point out Scotland's [so called] black hole? What’s the UKs "black hole"? Or do we use a different term for it? <br /><br />Btw, with regards to VAT and Scotland’s police having to pay it, please refer back to your retweet and scroll down to comments for the correction on his analysis.<br /><br />So, while Scotland is systematically turned into a wasteland with the erosion of our oil industry [30% tax], steel, renewable subsidy cuts, council cuts, welfare cuts, defense cuts, Longannet closure, VAT charges [Police], UK debt/deficit/interest charges, UK tax admin charges, border agency charges, you continue to defend the Union, as IF it was in Scotland's best interests?<br /><br />IF [as you say] you're just a lowly blogger with no axe to grind, prove it Kev? Let's have a careful considered/presented analysis of an independent Scotland, then and only then, [you may perhaps lose some of your fan base here] but at least, you'd be all that you present yourself to be, rather than just another bog standard "SNP Baaad" website?...<br /><br />Credibility dear boy, you can't buy it."Trust is built on credibility, and credibility only comes from acting in others interests before your own".<br />Dointhebiz1https://www.blogger.com/profile/01012169978019273203noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1603438996450817644.post-51984402210106243672015-11-11T04:32:04.025-08:002015-11-11T04:32:04.025-08:00To Bob @ 08:47 yesterday, in kind.
For you, Bob, ...To Bob @ 08:47 yesterday, in kind.<br /><br />For you, Bob, it doesn't seem to matter what happens<br />It doesn't matter that the SNP lied to you<br />It doesn't matter what the figures actually say<br />It doesn't matter that proper democratic process has been trampled all over<br />It doesn't matter that the majority of ALL people in Scotland voted to stay part of the UK<br />It doesn't matter how many people might lose their jobs<br />It doesn't matter that the SNP have failed to deliver 100 campaign promises<br />It doesn't matter that Holyrood is starting to look like a North Korean one-party congress<br />It doesn't matter that Scotland is bitterly divided<br />It doesn't matter that rabid ethnic nationalism has encouraged the very worst in people<br />It doesn't matter if your children's grandchildren are still picking up the tab later<br />It doesn't matter if joining the EU would take a while and give less autonomy than now<br />It doesn't matter that a currency union with RUK wouldn't fly<br />It doesn't matter whether independence is good or bad for Scotland in any way at all<br />Because what matters to guys like you Bob is<br />"They will never take our grievance!"<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1603438996450817644.post-132477958553994352015-11-11T01:16:13.045-08:002015-11-11T01:16:13.045-08:00Many thanks for the links, Anon, fascinating stuff...Many thanks for the links, Anon, fascinating stuff.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1603438996450817644.post-64350500307188865182015-11-11T00:41:02.088-08:002015-11-11T00:41:02.088-08:00Dointhebiz, "So you're questioning the cr...Dointhebiz, "So you're questioning the credentials of Jim Cuthbert...?" Of course I'm not, his credentials are a matter of record. What I definitely am questioning are his/their impartiality, methodology and conclusions. Credentials per se don't really make a difference, do they? Plenty of other economists with equal or even more heavyweight credentials appear to have drawn very different conclusions to those of the Cuthberts, ergo some economists must be wrong. And it might even be the Cuthberts. Or are you saying that someone without credentials isn't entitled to express an opinion, and anyone with them must automatically be right or above question? <br /><br />What matters is the quality of the argument, and on that score I (not an economist I cheerfully admit) find the Cuthberts' unconvincing for the reasons given, reasons which you are most welcome to dispute. To add to them, anyone who singles out the year 08/09 to base a conclusion on, when it is THE massive outlier exception to the generally less favourable economic pattern over the last fifteen years, is struggling to make a convincing case - if I'm permitted to make that observation.<br /><br />The Cuthberts' argument for including Scotland's balance of payments in the overall economic picture is quite reasonable, for the purpose of perspective. But then let us at least look across a representative spread of years, not only the single most favourable, and draw some more balanced conclusions on average performance figures. We're not simpletons, you know. And let's look at where the bulk of that net outflow goes (rUK, Europe) and what sectors mainly contribute to it (oil, finance), and consider challenging Indie scenarios such as borders, membership and currency. And lastly, let's ask how might any of it create a healthier public finance picture. Because unless that balance of payments picture materially alters the substance of SG revenues and the health of Scotland's public finances as described by GERS, then the size of net outflow adds nothing of any real relevance whatever to the discussion. Perhaps you can explain it to this non-expert.<br /><br />For the record, I did not pigeon-hole the Cuthberts as amateurs - that would be childish ad hominem stuff - I said they were unprofessionally selective in their use of data. Different thing altogether. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1603438996450817644.post-76121954294924897012015-11-10T17:01:25.027-08:002015-11-10T17:01:25.027-08:00"It doesn't matter that post yes vote, th..."It doesn't matter that post yes vote, the energy , interest and nascent development of a new exciting Scotland would have been the most incredible daily experience"<br /><br />Lamb. To. The. Slaughter. That's what you are, Bob.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01329280919041952141noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1603438996450817644.post-55661569876073353192015-11-10T15:58:39.230-08:002015-11-10T15:58:39.230-08:00Bob
I'm the least "I'm alright Jack&...Bob<br /><br />I'm the least "I'm alright Jack" person you could hope to meet.<br /><br />I'm not going to embarrass you by laying out my credentials on this but please: if you don't know someone don't presume to judge them.<br /><br /><br /><br />Kevin Haguehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14587343060415859159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1603438996450817644.post-43442288066900902752015-11-10T15:56:43.757-08:002015-11-10T15:56:43.757-08:00Goodness me dointhebiz you really don't pay at...Goodness me dointhebiz you really don't pay attention do you?<br /><br />Your laundry list of erroneous GERS gripes is textbook - in the name of all that's good and holy please read <a href="http://chokkablog.blogspot.co.uk/2015/06/stop-getting-gers-wrong.html" rel="nofollow">Stop Getting GERS wrong</a> and stop making such a fool of yourself with these posts.<br /><br />Read the Cuthberts quote from 2012 in the comment above - they were happy to rely on GERS by then.<br /><br />VAT is an EU issue and per GERS that VAT will be allocated back to Scotland anyway - so it's *not* a GERS gripe<br /><br />Abolish our share of defence? Fair enough - what defence budget do you propose? What defence employment implications? I always mention the £0.5bn saving as per White Paper (although that takes us below 2% GDP and questions if compatible with NATO).<br /><br />The White Paper recognised the need to *retain* a single UK National Grid - you really think you'd want to split it - you think there wouldn't be transnational interconnect charges?<br /><br />GERS doesn't allocate any cots to us for "infrastructure that doesn't benefit us one iota - how may time does this need to be pointed out to you? - read GERS methodology and it's clearly explained<br /><br />HoL? Scotland's share is <£10m pa - and most accept we'd need our own revising chamber<br /><br />Export taxes? Seriously, you're still arguing there's some mystery tax the Scot Gov has missed?<br /><br />Tax accounting and Head office location - absolutely nothing to do with GERS as I have explained many times - the SG assumption is highly generous (c.£0.5bn more than HMRC), has nothing top do with Head Office location and is what is used in GERS.<br /><br />You clearly have no concept of what would be required to create a currency.<br /><br />Please stop posting silly comments it's painful to watch<br /><br />Kevin Haguehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14587343060415859159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1603438996450817644.post-35233316670063381182015-11-10T12:22:35.568-08:002015-11-10T12:22:35.568-08:00Excellent work Kevin as always, meticulous in deta...Excellent work Kevin as always, meticulous in detail and analysis, but delivered in a clear and easy to understand manner, that surely even the pseudo-reverend could not fail to grasp (yet continue to petulantly deny of course). <br /><br />You know you say you do this for free and as an amateur, but I for one would bemore than happy to put my money where my mouth is and contribute through crowd funding to help you tto keep doing this important work, as I am sure so would many thousands of other patriotic Scots.<br /><br />Just say the word Kevin and we will support.<br /><br />DaveAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1603438996450817644.post-77231830607226222782015-11-10T08:47:03.521-08:002015-11-10T08:47:03.521-08:00'for me, being pro-union is more a result of b...'for me, being pro-union is more a result of being economically rational than because I hold a dogmatic view. '<br />You see Kevin, for guys like you it doesn't matter what happens, <br />it doesn't matter what social principles are ridden roughshod over.<br /> It doesn't matter that the vast majority of the poor and less socially mobile members of the Scottish electorate voted overwhelmingly for 'change' <br />It doesn't matter that Westminster is an archaic embarrassment.<br />It doesn't matter that 'Britain' is a morally bankrupt unequal cunthole<br />It doesn't matter that post yes vote, the energy , interest and nascent development of a new exciting Scotland would have been the most incredible daily experience<br />It doesn't matter whatever the economic challenges that an Independent Scotland might have faced <br />Because for guys like you, all that matters is <br />'I'm alright Jack'<br />BobAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1603438996450817644.post-41590963380630964452015-11-10T07:52:47.946-08:002015-11-10T07:52:47.946-08:00Rocoham
So you're questioning the credentials...<br />Rocoham<br /><br />So you're questioning the credentials of Jim Cuthbert [formerly Scottish Office Chief Statistician] and Margaret Cuthbert [also an economist and statistician who among other things lectured in econometrics at Glasgow University?..As opposed to whom Rocoham?...Kev...Really?<br />The element which I cite was taken directly from a paper written by the Cuthbert’s, but I imagine that now you've already pigeonholed them as rank amateurs, it would be somewhat pointless to go into any more detail. [And to think, Nationalists are regularly accused of following blindly :-)] Just in case your nose is bothering you in the future [I'm not sure if I'll be allowed] but here's a wee link to some of their [kindergarten] economics:<br /><br />http://www.cuthbert1.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/new_page_3.htm<br /><br />theambler<br /><br />I didn't say that Kevin’s analysis was "rubbish"? What I did say was that Kevin has based his analysis on "Flawed" information, much in the same way as the White paper, Alex Salmond and Wings. [Agreed] <br />Your argument, however, equally condemns yourself, in the same way as it condemns my argument, inasmuch as, when you say: "You are only now deciding that GERS is a useless source because it isn't showing what you want it to show". For the very same reason you prefer to accept what is being presented as "de Facto", which as you freely admit: "There is inevitably going to be some flawed data going into GERS". In other words, despite the [admitted]"flaws" you are quite happy to accept a version of partial statistics presented as gospel...This - for me - makes NO sense whatsoever.<br /><br />You then - further - go on to talk about:<br /><br />- The currency issue;<br />- The effect of enlarging the civil service;<br />- Loss of common regulation between Scotland and rUK.<br /><br />"You will note that all of these things are negative for Scotland".<br /><br />And the positives would be?...Can you think of any?... Or are we just a wee "rubbish" Country, that wouldn't save a penny even if we abolished our share of the UK defense, payment to connect to the National grid, paying VAT for the only police force in the UK, paying our share of the National debt/deficit/interest, paying for UK infrastructure [which doesn't benefit Scotland one iota] paying for [the unelected] HoL, Oh! And let's not forget about Scottish goods leaving from English ports/airports, [I'm quite sure we get all our taxes from those], Hmm..50 of our top blue chip companies have their head offices in London [Inc our Banks/building societies/supermarkets] I wonder where their taxes are accounted?...But alas, you're right, "the currency issue" was certainly something that Iceland deeply regret. <br /><br />Dointhebiz1https://www.blogger.com/profile/01012169978019273203noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1603438996450817644.post-78656536903318556342015-11-10T00:49:34.264-08:002015-11-10T00:49:34.264-08:00Dointhebiz, Kevin stated his on position on GERS o...Dointhebiz, Kevin stated his on position on GERS on this blog. If GERS is rubbish, every analysis based on GERS is rubbish. That would of course include:<br />- his own analyses;<br />- Wings Over Scotlands claims based on GERS;<br />- Alex Salmond's claims based on GERS;<br />- The claims in the White Paper based on GERS;<br /><br />There is inevitably going to be some flawed data going into GERS, but that is true of any accounts and indeed any complicated human endeavour. No honest person can be surprised by that. You are only now deciding that GERS is a useless source because it isn't showing what you want it to show.<br /><br />You are quite correct that GERS is not a direct proxy for an independent Scotland's public finances. For example, there would be economic effects as a result of:<br />- The currency issue;<br />- The effect of enlarging the civil service;<br />- Loss of common regulation between Scotland and rUK.<br /><br />You will note that all of these things are negative for Scotland.theamblerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01842086380447890404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1603438996450817644.post-85800035124375031842015-11-10T00:39:26.031-08:002015-11-10T00:39:26.031-08:00Dointhebiz, the Cuthberts are hardly applying an i...Dointhebiz, the Cuthberts are hardly applying an impartial scrutiny, are they? Basically they are economic cheerleaders for an independent Scotland. The quality and credibility of their analysis (which seems greatly to favour textual critique over seriously crunching any data) suffers as a result: they have decided an outcome and are making (up) an argument to support it. Very like what you seem to be criticising Kevin for doing, in other words. <br /><br />To take one element you cite "..the outflow of private finance from the Scottish economy of £16.7 billion in 2008-09[...]immediately alters one’s perception of the Scottish economy [as opposed to] the partial set of accounts provided by GERS." Well, this sum might indeed alter a perception of the overall size of Scotland's trading economy, but it does not invalidate GERS one iota because it lies wholly outside the GERS remit of *public* finance - government revenues and expenditure for Scotland. The Cuthberts do not specify how this £16.7 billion does now or could in the future address Scotland's significant public accounts deficit. Nor do they specify whether this "outflow" is gross turnover or taxable profit or what, nor how it is broken down by industry or trends over time, and hence to what degree the number is remotely relevant to a consideration of an independent Scotland's public accounts. It's just waved in the air as though it scored some important point.<br /><br />They also, by the way, appear to have invented an entirely new definition of "cash cow" (it would be good to hear what they think it means).<br /><br />For an evaluation of their credibility, this was the Cuthberts in 2012: "It is now clear, as even the Unionists have to concede, that Scotland’s basic fiscal position, including Scotland’s share of North Sea revenues, is considerably better than the corresponding balance for the whole of the UK. As a percentage of GDP, Scotland has had a healthier balance than the UK as a whole on its current budget for each of the past six years. In fact, for three of these six years, Scotland was in surplus on its current budget, while the UK was in deficit throughout." Yes, really. Unprofessionally selective in their methodology, and downright wrong in their conclusions. They are not the analytical rock I would chose to build my dream house upon.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1603438996450817644.post-65366145612662305622015-11-09T21:23:28.780-08:002015-11-09T21:23:28.780-08:00@rooham
The CBI had quite a lot to say about the ...<br />@rooham<br /><br />The CBI had quite a lot to say about the White Paper, of course Nationalists will say "They would say they wouldn't they" rather than admitting that the majority of all they said was valid http://www.cbi.org.uk/media/2631703/cbi_analysis_-_scottish_government_s_independence_white_paper.pdf <br /><br />The white paper has of course been found to be lacking ie "'failed to meet civil service standards' http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/11488869/Independence-White-Paper-failed-to-meet-civil-service-standards.html<br /><br />Some good reading on the "white paper" here http://nupateer.com/foreword/ <br /><br />I liked this version of events for any re-run from Allan Sutherland in the papers yesterday.<br />------------------------------------<br /> <br />I had this letter in the Scotsman, P&J and Metro today.<br /><br /> Dear Sir,<br /> The SNP have tabled an Amendment enabling the Scottish Government to call a referendum.<br /> I suggest some further amendments. The referendum should be UK-wide, after separation settlement between Scotland and the UK has been negotiated . In this way, unlike last year, there can be no dispute on what we are letting ourselves in for.<br /> This would cover currency, our share of UK National debt (currently £1.3 trillion), border security, movement of labour and trade tariffs, how assets and services such as the Post Office, armed forces, BBC, railways are divided up, and the role of the monarchy.<br /><br /> To initiate the process the Scottish Government would announce in its manifesto the intention to negotiate a separation agreement with the UK Government. <br /><br />There are three precedents for this: the original and upcoming EU referendums and the Northern Ireland "Good Friday" Agreement (which was actually voted for by the people of the Republic of Ireland too).<br /><br /> A clear result should be that 60% of those voting in the referendum had agreed to the terms of the agreement by voting "yes". <br /><br />Allan Sutherland<br />----------------------------------------<br /><br /><br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1603438996450817644.post-62031960255620709032015-11-09T13:12:19.789-08:002015-11-09T13:12:19.789-08:00One of my gripes about the way independence refere...One of my gripes about the way independence referendum was handled was that the White Paper, produced by the Scottish Government, answerable (aye, right) to the Scottish people as whole, and dealing with a matter of such enormous and long-term significance to the nation of Scotland and the UK, was so completely partial. There was no attempt to weigh the pros and cons, or give a semblance of objectivity. All figures and facts and sources were selected and glossed to make one case and one case only, that of independence. There was not even a cautionary "your Indie dividend can go down as well as up" sticker on the cover of this shameless prospectus. This approach seems to me have been beyond irresponsible and bordering on the criminal. <br /><br />Which makes me ask now, if at any time we go through a referendum again is there any mechanism which can oblige the Scottish Government to deliver a less one-sided and more responsible basis for debate and decision? Surely a second referendum cannot use the same out-dated and largely discredited White Paper again, so is there any means by which its next iteration would definitely be made more honest and impartial? (Apart, that is, from a strong suspicion that even the SNP leadership are now scared so witless by the prospect of actual independence or even FFA that next time they themselves might actually want to put a less rosy glow on everything.) Any thoughts?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1603438996450817644.post-85457223593227674012015-11-09T12:01:13.200-08:002015-11-09T12:01:13.200-08:00Kevin, here is what the cuthberts said:
"In ...Kevin, here is what the cuthberts said:<br /><br />"In Scotland, by contrast, we have got the partial set of accounts provided by GERS. It is as if Ian Lang laid down the tracks in 1992: and although the tram travelling along these tracks after the 2008 GERS review is not as ramshackle and rickety as the original vehicle, it still has to travel along the direction laid down by the tracks. We would argue that the GERS debate will not go anywhere else until a balanced set of accounts is produced for Scotland along Pink Book lines.<br />Consider, for example, the initial estimate produced in 2010 by Scottish government statisticians, which gave a net outflow of private finance from the Scottish economy of £16.7 billion in 2008-09: (minutes of Scottish Economic Consultants Group Meeting, 18th October 2010.). It should be stressed that this is a very provisional estimate. Nevertheless this figure, with all its caveats, immediately alters one’s perception of the Scottish economy. If, (on the basis of Nickell’s analysis), the UK economy is a large bank – the Scottish economy is a cash cow". <br /><br />In other words, GERS has been improved [since 2008] but - in NO way - reflect or give a full picture of Scotland's true worth. They are also based on the "status quo", with no indication or figures of how Scotland would perform as an Independent Nation, totally in charge of its own finances.<br /><br />Few could fault your accounts Kev, but as I said when I first wrote to you, IF the initial information supplied is flawed [through no fault of the Scottish Government or yourself] then we end up with "factual accounts" based on "partial statistics".<br /><br />Ps. I don't expect an answer, but thanks for your time.<br /><br />RegardsDointhebiz1https://www.blogger.com/profile/01012169978019273203noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1603438996450817644.post-57431942649991275812015-11-09T07:21:43.024-08:002015-11-09T07:21:43.024-08:00Hi Kevin,
A great response. Thanks for putting in...Hi Kevin,<br /><br />A great response. Thanks for putting in the time and the effort.<br /><br />What's your feelings on the EU? There's a lot of empty outer assertion out there, wrapped up in quite a lot of prejudice IMO.<br /><br />I'd be interested to hear, as a businessman I'm sure you've weighed up the pros & cons.<br /><br />Regards,<br /><br />Dave B<br /><br />Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16438590567231582197noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1603438996450817644.post-48302895866211366952015-11-09T07:17:34.992-08:002015-11-09T07:17:34.992-08:00Nice work. Very well presented. Always like read...Nice work. Very well presented. Always like reading your posts, as they are written with a modicum of authority, yet do not declare to be`anything other than they are.Pete Vapemanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07959007116997276013noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1603438996450817644.post-73171468823186838472015-11-08T16:23:56.945-08:002015-11-08T16:23:56.945-08:00Great stuff, as always. It's always better to ...Great stuff, as always. It's always better to speak the truth for free than be paid to write crap.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01329280919041952141noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1603438996450817644.post-37299602463561135342015-11-08T13:12:08.232-08:002015-11-08T13:12:08.232-08:00Thank you - I do believe it's important the si...Thank you - I do believe it's important the silent majority starts to speak up!Kevin Haguehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14587343060415859159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1603438996450817644.post-57112618565697737522015-11-08T13:11:07.493-08:002015-11-08T13:11:07.493-08:00A huge thank you for taking the time to write that...A huge thank you for taking the time to write thatKevin Haguehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14587343060415859159noreply@blogger.com