The rise and fall of The SNP.

[Mars plastic]

2 hours ago, The Mighty Thor said:

They would appear to speak for a considerable majority of Scottish voters, given the last electoral ballot.

And the one before that.

And the one before that.

And all within a system duked to prevent that from happening.

 

You getting it yet?

I get it alright. One thing you'll not be getting, ever, is independence. So like the current incumbents in the Shortbread Senate, stop yer grievance & greetin and get on with it. You had your chance in 2014 and you blew it.

[Mars plastic]

9 hours ago, Roxy Hearts said:

Don't bother too much about this chancer. He sounds like those unionist twats Ian Murray and Murdo Fraser. Life would be better without the bitter and twisted UJ waving zealots. They won the referendum but you'd think they'd lost! They don't realise democracy never stops!

I'm thankful that I don't know any wee guys like you.

[Unknown user]

11 minutes ago, Mars plastic said:

I get it alright. One thing you'll not be getting, ever, is independence. So like the current incumbents in the Shortbread Senate, stop yer grievance & greetin and get on with it. You had your chance in 2014 and you blew it.

 

It's inevitable, it's just a case of when, that's why you lot wish the conversation would just go away.

 

Well it isn't going away.

 

Scotland's government should be decided by Scotland's people, it's that simple.

[Konrad von Carstein]

7 minutes ago, jonesy said:

The folk I know that voted 'no' in 2014 are far from being die-hard unionists/bitter and twisted UJ waving zealots. Many of them thought long and hard about their vote and did plenty of research for themselves on the matter and how it would affect their children. 

 

However, the vocal minority of disappointed 'yes' voters who pinned their very self-identity and, it appears, their self-respect, on a 'yes' outcome who have spent the last seven years bombarding the internet with hatred and bile have done nothing to convince them to change their vote should another referendum occur.

 

I can only imagine what the Twitter/Facebook turbowank threads about indy are like, given this is only a football forum.

All of your post could/can be amended to reflect the opposite viewpoint.

 

Final para,  sadly I've seen the turbowank (I'm nicking that) unionist anti independence threads on FB.

Not pretty.

[Konrad von Carstein]

3 minutes ago, Smithee said:

 

It's inevitable, it's just a case of when, that's why you lot wish the conversation would just go away.

 

Well it isn't going away.

 

Scotland's government should be decided by Scotland's people, it's that simple.

Message ends!

[JudyJudyJudy]

12 minutes ago, jonesy said:

The folk I know that voted 'no' in 2014 are far from being die-hard unionists/bitter and twisted UJ waving zealots. Many of them thought long and hard about their vote and did plenty of research for themselves on the matter and how it would affect their children. 

 

However, the vocal minority of disappointed 'yes' voters who pinned their very self-identity and, it appears, their self-respect, on a 'yes' outcome who have spent the last seven years bombarding the internet with hatred and bile have done nothing to convince them to change their vote should another referendum occur.

 

I can only imagine what the Twitter/Facebook turbowank threads about indy are like, given this is only a football forum.

Great post . Similar to my experience in 2014 . I was shocked that one of my Neices was going to vote No . I had many a debate with her but she was insistent voting no. Her main concern was the economy and her children’s future . I didn’t get that then as was wrapped up In the jingoism of the saltire but I can see things clearer now and I get it . I respect  people’s reason to vote no 

[Konrad von Carstein]

6 minutes ago, jonesy said:

Indeed. However, given the result last time around, it wasn’t the ‘no’  campaign that needed to convince people to change their minds. 
 

I genuinely don’t see how folk can be arsed using Facebook for political stuff unless they actually enjoy getting angry or being told they are right. 

Think they enjoy the vibrations of the angry triumphalist echo chamber that they inhabit.

 

(Guess the similar can be said for the Yessers)

[Des Lynam]

22 minutes ago, jonesy said:

The folk I know that voted 'no' in 2014 are far from being die-hard unionists/bitter and twisted UJ waving zealots. Many of them thought long and hard about their vote and did plenty of research for themselves on the matter and how it would affect their children. 

 

However, the vocal minority of disappointed 'yes' voters who pinned their very self-identity and, it appears, their self-respect, on a 'yes' outcome who have spent the last seven years bombarding the internet with hatred and bile have done nothing to convince them to change their vote should another referendum occur.

 

I can only imagine what the Twitter/Facebook turbowank threads about indy are like, given this is only a football forum.

Turbowank 😂

 

7 minutes ago, JamesM48 said:

Great post . Similar to my experience in 2014 . I was shocked that one of my Neices was going to vote No . I had many a debate with her but she was insistent voting no. Her main concern was the economy and her children’s future . I didn’t get that then as was wrapped up In the jingoism of the saltire but I can see things clearer now and I get it . I respect  people’s reason to vote no 

The argument unless you vote yes you’re not as Scottish as I am was very prevalent in some quarters. It was sad as it just led to further division. 

 

5 minutes ago, jonesy said:

Indeed. However, given the result last time around, it wasn’t the ‘no’  campaign that needed to convince people to change their minds. 
 

I genuinely don’t see how folk can be arsed using Facebook for political stuff unless they actually enjoy getting angry or being told they are right. 

The SNP can’t rely on stick on Braveheart and vote yes. They must lay out an economic plan and counter any response to the economy will collapse nonsense. 

[Governor Tarkin]

2 minutes ago, Konrad von Carstein said:

Think they enjoy the vibrations of the angry triumphalist echo chamber that they inhabit.

 

(Guess the similar can be said for the Yessers)

 

Notable satirical parody's and blindingly obvious wummery aside, this thread really isn't that different.

[Governor Tarkin]

30 minutes ago, jonesy said:

The folk I know that voted 'no' in 2014 are far from being die-hard unionists/bitter and twisted UJ waving zealots. Many of them thought long and hard about their vote and did plenty of research for themselves on the matter and how it would affect their children. 

 

However, the vocal minority of disappointed 'yes' voters who pinned their very self-identity and, it appears, their self-respect, on a 'yes' outcome who have spent the last seven years bombarding the internet with hatred and bile have done nothing to convince them to change their vote should another referendum occur.

 

I can only imagine what the Twitter/Facebook turbowank threads about indy are like, given this is only a football forum.

 

Good post. 

[Konrad von Carstein]

Just now, Governor Tarkin said:

 

Notable satirical parody's and blindingly obvious wummery aside, this thread really isn't that different.

Oh,  undoubtedly...

[JudyJudyJudy]

10 minutes ago, Des Lynam said:

Turbowank 😂

 

The argument unless you vote yes you’re not as Scottish as I am was very prevalent in some quarters. It was sad as it just led to further division. 

 

The SNP can’t rely on stick on Braveheart and vote yes. They must lay out an economic plan and counter any response to the economy will collapse nonsense. 

👍

[Governor Tarkin]

1 minute ago, jonesy said:

One can only dream of the better quality of debate surrounding independence if it were kept to coffee houses, drawing rooms and public meetings. The internet has helped give a platform to the loudest, cheapest voices.

 

Speak for yourself.

[Mars plastic]

42 minutes ago, Smithee said:

 

It's inevitable, it's just a case of when, that's why you lot wish the conversation would just go away.

 

Well it isn't going away.

 

Scotland's government should be decided by Scotland's people, it's that simple.

It's not going away, Smithee from Europe, I'm acutely aware of that. 

[The Mighty Thor]

2 hours ago, Mars plastic said:

I get it alright. One thing you'll not be getting, ever, is independence. So like the current incumbents in the Shortbread Senate, stop yer grievance & greetin and get on with it. You had your chance in 2014 and you blew it.

Ah I see.

 

Other than the 'uncle tam' routine your locker is empty.

 

I'll leave you to your self-loathing. 

 

 

[Mars plastic]

1 minute ago, The Mighty Thor said:

Ah I see.

 

Other than the 'uncle tam' routine your locker is empty.

 

I'll leave you to your self-loathing. 

 

 

The locker is straining at the hinges. However, as Enzo has articulated wonderfully throughout this thread why Scotland will never be independent it seems pointless me repeating him verbatim.

[Auldbenches]

2 hours ago, Des Lynam said:

Turbowank 😂

 

The argument unless you vote yes you’re not as Scottish as I am was very prevalent in some quarters. It was sad as it just led to further division. 

 

The SNP can’t rely on stick on Braveheart and vote yes. They must lay out an economic plan and counter any response to the economy will collapse nonsense. 

I never saw Braveheart for about 3 years after it came out, thankfully.  

What put me off was that, the first week it was being shown, the snp were standing outside the ABC on Lothian road and handing leaflets to people when they were coming out at the end of the film.  

Doesn't mean I didn't want independence but thought that was pathetic  

Campaign but that was a bit much  

I wish I hadn't seen the movie at all as it's pretty pish.

 

 

[Auldbenches]

2 hours ago, Mars plastic said:

I'm thankful that I don't know any wee guys like you.

You sometimes get celebrities etc say that theyll leave the country if something ever happens, would that be the case for you if Scotland got independence?

 

[Mars plastic]

1 minute ago, Auldbenches said:

You sometimes get celebrities etc say that theyll leave the country if something ever happens, would that be the case for you if Scotland got independence?

 

Scotland is already the highest taxed country in the UK and I already pay approx. £400 more in tax a year than somebody on similar dough down south. You'd have to be naive in the extreme to think taxes wouldn't be raised substantially in order to finance the cost of independence, so yes, I'd 100% consider it, as would thousands of others. 

[Auldbenches]

Just now, Mars plastic said:

Scotland is already the highest taxed country in the UK and I already pay approx. £400 more in tax a year than somebody on similar dough down south. You'd have to be naive in the extreme to think taxes wouldn't be raised substantially in order to finance the cost of independence, so yes, I'd 100% consider it, as would thousands of others. 

Decent honest answer.  

[Roxy Hearts]

2 hours ago, jonesy said:

The folk I know that voted 'no' in 2014 are far from being die-hard unionists/bitter and twisted UJ waving zealots. Many of them thought long and hard about their vote and did plenty of research for themselves on the matter and how it would affect their children. 

 

However, the vocal minority of disappointed 'yes' voters who pinned their very self-identity and, it appears, their self-respect, on a 'yes' outcome who have spent the last seven years bombarding the internet with hatred and bile have done nothing to convince them to change their vote should another referendum occur.

 

I can only imagine what the Twitter/Facebook turbowank threads about indy are like, given this is only a football forum.

Both sides can be bad. I find the union side more bitter and aggressive. I'm not on FB as more of a kids thing.

 

2 hours ago, Mars plastic said:

I'm thankful that I don't know any wee guys like you.

Not sure what you mean bud. I'm 5'10". Not that wee! 🤣

[manaliveits105]

JKB tartanban hold an emergency Enzo meeting 

[Konrad von Carstein]

3 minutes ago, manaliveits105 said:

JKB tartanban hold an emergency Enzo meeting 

Looks like the Conservative and Unionist Party JKB branch meeting...

[Sub4TiddlerMurray]

13 hours ago, Enzo Chiefo said:

 

Yet, like the SNP and Sturgeon herself, you ignore the important, factual outcomes that affect people on a daily basis. Hospital waiting lists, tragic deaths in hospitals and care homes due to SCOTTISH GOVT negligence, doctors appointments,  exam results,  class sizes, crime, policing budgets, roads etc etc.

 

 

Please don't let these facts get in the way of your "factual" post Enzo:

 

The OECD reports that healthcare spending in 2017/18 in Scotland was £2,368 per person, while in England it was £2,182, Wales £2,324, and in Northern Ireland £2,320. As a result of this additional spending per head Scotland has 76 GPs per 100,000 people, compared to a national UK average of 60. Scotland also has more qualified nurses and midwives per 1,000 population than the UK, with 8.1 per 1,000 recorded in Scotland compared to 7.9 in the UKas a whole. 

 

Newly qualified nurses in Scotland are also paid over £1,000 more than any other UK nation.

 

A new report by the Education Policy Institute (@EduPolicyInst), funded by the Nuffield Foundation (@NuffieldFound), finds that Scotland is ahead of the other UK nations on class sizes (pupil-teacher ratios), where in primary schools it has just 16 pupils for every one teacher, compared to 21 pupils or higher in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. In secondary schools, there are just 12 pupils per teacher in Scotland, compared to 16 or higher in the other UK nations.

 

In 2019/20, the crime rate for the United Kingdom was 96.4 crimes per one thousand people, with England & Wales having a much higher crime rate of 102.8 crimes per thousand people than Scotland's 45.1 crimes per thousand people

 

 

 

 

Edited September 29, 2021 by Sub4TiddlerMurray

[Sub4TiddlerMurray]

55 minutes ago, Mars plastic said:

Scotland is already the highest taxed country in the UK and I already pay approx. £400 more in tax a year than somebody on similar dough down south. You'd have to be naive in the extreme to think taxes wouldn't be raised substantially in order to finance the cost of independence, so yes, I'd 100% consider it, as would thousands of others. 

 

Tax difference only affects higher earners...but carry on.

 

[jack D and coke]

2 minutes ago, Sub4TiddlerMurray said:

 

Please don't let these facts get in the way of your "factual" post Enzo:

 

The OECD reports that healthcare spending in 2017/18 in Scotland was £2,368 per person, while in England it was £2,182, Wales £2,324, and in Northern Ireland £2,320. As a result of this additional spending per head Scotland has 76 GPs per 100,000 people, compared to a national UK average of 60. Scotland also has more qualified nurses and midwives per 1,000 population than the UK, with 8.1 per 1,000 recorded in Scotland compared to 7.9 in the UKas a whole. 

 

Newly qualified nurses in Scotland are also paid over £1,000 more than any other UK nation.

 

A new report by the Education Policy Institute (@EduPolicyInst), funded by the Nuffield Foundation (@NuffieldFound), finds that Scotland is ahead of the other UK nations on class sizes (pupil-teacher ratios), where in primary schools it has just 16 pupils for every one teacher, compared to 21 pupils or higher in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. In secondary schools, there are just 12 pupils per teacher in Scotland, compared to 16 or higher in the other UK nations.

Scotland is only ever been to be compared to England when we’re shite don’t you know? 
Otherwise we shouldn’t compare and it’s absolutely nothing to be shouting about🤪

 

[Unknown user]

8 minutes ago, Sub4TiddlerMurray said:

 

Please don't let these facts get in the way of your "factual" post Enzo:

 

The OECD reports that healthcare spending in 2017/18 in Scotland was £2,368 per person, while in England it was £2,182, Wales £2,324, and in Northern Ireland £2,320. As a result of this additional spending per head Scotland has 76 GPs per 100,000 people, compared to a national UK average of 60. Scotland also has more qualified nurses and midwives per 1,000 population than the UK, with 8.1 per 1,000 recorded in Scotland compared to 7.9 in the UKas a whole. 

 

Newly qualified nurses in Scotland are also paid over £1,000 more than any other UK nation.

 

A new report by the Education Policy Institute (@EduPolicyInst), funded by the Nuffield Foundation (@NuffieldFound), finds that Scotland is ahead of the other UK nations on class sizes (pupil-teacher ratios), where in primary schools it has just 16 pupils for every one teacher, compared to 21 pupils or higher in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. In secondary schools, there are just 12 pupils per teacher in Scotland, compared to 16 or higher in the other UK nations.

 

In 2019/20, the crime rate for the United Kingdom was 96.4 crimes per one thousand people, with England & Wales having a much higher crime rate of 102.8 crimes per thousand people than Scotland's 45.1 crimes per thousand people

 

 

 

 

 

Good to hear, we should tax MP more, he can obviously afford it

[manaliveits105]

What’s the currency going to be again ?

[Ron Burgundy]

1 minute ago, Hunky Dory said:

The Yoons on the thread are blowing smoke up Enzo's erse, but he's been called out on numerous occasions with facts and figures. Proof that the Unionist argument is dead, they'll cling onto anything right now that provides a semblance of hope that the union will be preserved.

Proof the argument is over indeed 😆

That's me convinced.

[Ron Burgundy]

Just now, manaliveits105 said:

What’s the currency going to be again ?

The argument is over. See above.

[Enzo Chiefo]

1 hour ago, Sub4TiddlerMurray said:

 

Please don't let these facts get in the way of your "factual" post Enzo:

 

The OECD reports that healthcare spending in 2017/18 in Scotland was £2,368 per person, while in England it was £2,182, Wales £2,324, and in Northern Ireland £2,320. As a result of this additional spending per head Scotland has 76 GPs per 100,000 people, compared to a national UK average of 60. Scotland also has more qualified nurses and midwives per 1,000 population than the UK, with 8.1 per 1,000 recorded in Scotland compared to 7.9 in the UKas a whole. 

 

Newly qualified nurses in Scotland are also paid over £1,000 more than any other UK nation.

 

A new report by the Education Policy Institute (@EduPolicyInst), funded by the Nuffield Foundation (@NuffieldFound), finds that Scotland is ahead of the other UK nations on class sizes (pupil-teacher ratios), where in primary schools it has just 16 pupils for every one teacher, compared to 21 pupils or higher in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. In secondary schools, there are just 12 pupils per teacher in Scotland, compared to 16 or higher in the other UK nations.

 

In 2019/20, the crime rate for the United Kingdom was 96.4 crimes per one thousand people, with England & Wales having a much higher crime rate of 102.8 crimes per thousand people than Scotland's 45.1 crimes per thousand people

 

 

 

 

The Nationalists certainly do live in their own wee fantasy world.  

You do realise that the £1826 per capita public spending in Scotland,  comes directly via the Barnett consequentials, courtesy of rUK taxpayers.

Boasting about higher spending while lamenting the source of the extra spending, is the SNP all over.

To make it easy for all the Sturgeon disciples out there; last year, we raised £67 bn in taxes but spent £99bn, which includes the small amounr of defence spending,  £3.5 bn or so. That was an exceptional year due to furlough etc but recent years have had deficits of £15bn, covered by rUK.

 

Again, I'll ask; what area of spending would Scotland cut if it were separate,  to make up the £15bn shortfall from the loss of Barnett??

 

 

[Roxy Hearts]

41 minutes ago, Enzo Chiefo said:

The Nationalists certainly do live in their own wee fantasy world.  

You do realise that the £1826 per capita public spending in Scotland,  comes directly via the Barnett consequentials, courtesy of rUK taxpayers.

Boasting about higher spending while lamenting the source of the extra spending, is the SNP all over.

To make it easy for all the Sturgeon disciples out there; last year, we raised £67 bn in taxes but spent £99bn, which includes the small amounr of defence spending,  £3.5 bn or so. That was an exceptional year due to furlough etc but recent years have had deficits of £15bn, covered by rUK.

 

Again, I'll ask; what area of spending would Scotland cut if it were separate,  to make up the £15bn shortfall from the loss of Barnett??

 

 

Which nationalists do you mean, britnats? I don't believe these figures, as not a single ordinary Scot knows our finances as Westminster won't tell us! If the UK can operate with a 2 trillion debt and massive deficit why can't Scotland if that were to be the situation? You do follow any path that suggests our country is poor and incapable!

[Enzo Chiefo]

12 minutes ago, Roxy Hearts said:

Which nationalists do you mean, britnats? I don't believe these figures, as not a single ordinary Scot knows our finances as Westminster won't tell us! If the UK can operate with a 2 trillion debt and massive deficit why can't Scotland if that were to be the situation? You do follow any path that suggests our country is poor and incapable!

The GERS figures are published by the Scot Gov and approved by independent economists. 

The deficit is the difference between the money we raise and the money we spend, income and expenditure. 

The Scottish deficit is several times higher than the rUK deficit. We would have to cover that £12-£15bn shortfall before we even start borrowing at equivalent UK levels.

 

You don't believe the figures so perhaps you could tell us which parts are incorrect?

 

[NANOJAMBO]

8 minutes ago, Enzo Chiefo said:

The GERS figures are published by the Scot Gov and approved by independent economists. 

The deficit is the difference between the money we raise and the money we spend, income and expenditure. 

The Scottish deficit is several times higher than the rUK deficit. We would have to cover that £12-£15bn shortfall before we even start borrowing at equivalent UK levels.

 

You don't believe the figures so perhaps you could tell us which parts are incorrect?

 

WHAT IS GERS?

According to the Scottish Government website, “Government Expenditure and Revenue Scotland (GERS) is a National Statistics publication. It estimates the revenue raised in Scotland and the goods and services provided for the benefit of Scotland.”  Note the word "estimates". GERS estimates the taxes raised and public monies spent in Scotland, and any associated financial deficit. These figures are not possible to determine without a degree of guess work and assumption. For instance, how should spending that applies to the whole UK (e.g. defence or foreign embassies) be allocated to Scotland?

GERS was published first in 1992 under the Conservative government of John Major, at a time when the Tories were opposing calls for devolution. In a leaked memo, then Secretary of State Ian Lang admitted: "I judge that [GERS] is just what is needed at present in our campaign to maintain the initiative and undermine the other parties. This initiative could score against all of them.” (See The National, 25 August 2016)

 

Since its inception, GERS has been criticised for its methodology. Expenditure that can’t be identified as spent directly in Scotland is allocated by a variety of rules: by population share for defence and atomic weapons, but by Scotland’s share of UK Gross Value Added for national transport infrastructure. Most important of all, GERS takes existing Tory government spending and tax policies and applies them to an independent Scotland. Yet nobody seriously imagines that an independent Scotland would continue Conservative defence plans or tax loopholes.

*******************************************************

How much of HS2 expenditure in England is allocated to Scotland? Or is that excluded from GERS ? 

Edited September 29, 2021 by NANOJAMBO

[Enzo Chiefo]

4 minutes ago, NANOJAMBO said:

WHAT IS GERS?

According to the Scottish Government website, “Government Expenditure and Revenue Scotland (GERS) is a National Statistics publication. It estimates the revenue raised in Scotland and the goods and services provided for the benefit of Scotland.”  Note the word "estimates". GERS estimates the taxes raised and public monies spent in Scotland, and any associated financial deficit. These figures are not possible to determine without a degree of guess work and assumption. For instance, how should spending that applies to the whole UK (e.g. defence or foreign embassies) be allocated to Scotland?

GERS was published first in 1992 under the Conservative government of John Major, at a time when the Tories were opposing calls for devolution. In a leaked memo, then Secretary of State Ian Lang admitted: "I judge that [GERS] is just what is needed at present in our campaign to maintain the initiative and undermine the other parties. This initiative could score against all of them.” (See The National, 25 August 2016)

 

Since its inception, GERS has been criticised for its methodology. Expenditure that can’t be identified as spent directly in Scotland is allocated by a variety of rules: by population share for defence and atomic weapons, but by Scotland’s share of UK Gross Value Added for national transport infrastructure. Most important of all, GERS takes existing Tory government spending and tax policies and applies them to an independent Scotland. Yet nobody seriously imagines that an independent Scotland would continue Conservative defence plans or tax loopholes.

*******************************************************

How much of HS2 expenditure in England is allocated to Scotland? Or is that excluded from GERS ? 

Zero HS2 expenditure is allocated to Scotland. 

I think we'll just file the GERS conspiracy theories next to the missing oilfields - when they were fashionable-  the Independence "vote rigging " and the notion that WM is trying to make Scotland "poorer".

[NANOJAMBO]

8 minutes ago, Enzo Chiefo said:

Zero HS2 expenditure is allocated to Scotland. 

I think we'll just file the GERS conspiracy theories next to the missing oilfields - when they were fashionable-  the Independence "vote rigging " and the notion that WM is trying to make Scotland "poorer".

Cheers. Got a source for that ? 

 

My source says this -

 

Within GERS, the expenditure has been apportioned to Scotland in line with the regional breakdown of the benefits of High Speed 2 reported within The Economic Case for HS2, published by the Department for Transport. This assigns Scotland 2% of the total expenditure.

Edited September 29, 2021 by NANOJAMBO

[Japan Jambo]

On 27/09/2021 at 12:02, Taffin said:

 

For you and I, it's not. For some though, and you just need to look on here, it's based on some kind of idea that Scotland is a brilliant utopia only held back by WM, it just needs unshackled and everything will be great. They'll be in for a serious shock if it ever happens.

 

As you've posted many times lately, the single question people need to ask themselves is:

 

'Should Scotland be self-governed?'

 

The rest is just dogma and putting the cart before the horse. You decide whether you believe Scotland should be independent and then worry about the currency etc. People will say that's putting idealism ahead of pragmatism...which it is, but it's not for the electorate to resolve imo.

 

Setting aside the pro's and con's of Brexit an easy criticism to make was that there quite evidently was no plan of any substance for the unexpected win. Unless there is a macabre wish for history to repeat itself so quickly perhaps the electorate may do well to ask (and crucially have answered) a few more questions before going all in on the blue paint? 

[NANOJAMBO]

27 minutes ago, Enzo Chiefo said:

The GERS figures are published by the Scot Gov and approved by independent economists. 

The deficit is the difference between the money we raise and the money we spend, income and expenditure. 

The Scottish deficit is several times higher than the rUK deficit. We would have to cover that £12-£15bn shortfall before we even start borrowing at equivalent UK levels.

 

You don't believe the figures so perhaps you could tell us which parts are incorrect?

 

That's incorrect.

 

Q: Who produces GERS?

A: GERS is produced by Scottish Government statisticians. It is designated as a National Statistics product, which means that it is produced independently of Scottish Ministers and has been assessed by the UK Statistics Authority as being produced in line with the Code of Practice for Statistics. This means the statistics have been found to meet user needs, to be methodologically sound, explained well and produced free of political interference.

 

The key words here are "the statistics". 

 

[Enzo Chiefo]

1 minute ago, NANOJAMBO said:

That's incorrect.

 

Q: Who produces GERS?

A: GERS is produced by Scottish Government statisticians. It is designated as a National Statistics product, which means that it is produced independently of Scottish Ministers and has been assessed by the UK Statistics Authority as being produced in line with the Code of Practice for Statistics. This means the statistics have been found to meet user needs, to be methodologically sound, explained well and produced free of political interference.

 

The key words here are "the statistics". 

 

Oh ffs. "Free of ministerial interference " is certainly a novelty in an SNP led Scotland.  Every other " independent " report or inquiry is redacted, delayed or toned down.

Perhaps that explains why the figures are accurate.

[NANOJAMBO]

Just now, Enzo Chiefo said:

Oh ffs. "Free of ministerial interference " is certainly a novelty in an SNP led Scotland.  Every other " independent " report or inquiry is redacted, delayed or toned down.

Perhaps that explains why the figures are accurate.

I'm going to let you carry on talking . You suggested someone should inform you of what part of GERS is wrong when you masquerade as some  kind of sage on the matter when quite clearly there are gaping holes in your knowledge/interpretatation of what GERS is, what it contains, how its compiled etc. 

You don't even understand the basic facts of GERS and resort to ad hominem to cover it. 

[Taffin]

29 minutes ago, Japan Jambo said:

 

Setting aside the pro's and con's of Brexit an easy criticism to make was that there quite evidently was no plan of any substance for the unexpected win. Unless there is a macabre wish for history to repeat itself so quickly perhaps the electorate may do well to ask (and crucially have answered) a few more questions before going all in on the blue paint? 

 

The above is a very good challenge and one that pre-Brexit I found hard to reconcile. However we're in a period of chaos now with many unknowns, might as well make finding the solution our own doing and find one that's right for Scotland I guess.

[Enzo Chiefo]

34 minutes ago, NANOJAMBO said:

I'm going to let you carry on talking . You suggested someone should inform you of what part of GERS is wrong when you masquerade as some  kind of sage on the matter when quite clearly there are gaping holes in your knowledge/interpretatation of what GERS is, what it contains, how its compiled etc. 

You don't even understand the basic facts of GERS and resort to ad hominem to cover it. 

Perhaps you could answer the key question that I have asked numerous times on this Board :

 

What area of spending - GERS is based on ACTUAL spending commitments- would Scotland cut, in order to bridge the £12bn -£15bn gap?

 

As always with Nats, the emphasis is on conspiracy theories and processes rather than substance and answers.

 

 

 

[NANOJAMBO]

1 minute ago, Enzo Chiefo said:

Perhaps you could answer the key question that I have asked numerous times on this Board :

 

What area of spending - GERS is based on ACTUAL spending commitments- would Scotland cut, in order to bridge the £12bn -£15bn gap?

 

As always with Nats, the emphasis is on conspiracy theories and processes rather than substance and answers.

 

 

 

I'm no longer engaging with idiots.

PS I already asked you about the GERS data (HS2) - which you ignored, 

so don't expect me to be doing anything.

PPS I don't know what a "Nat" is but I don't support the SNP. 

 

Bye. 

[Enzo Chiefo]

Just now, NANOJAMBO said:

I'm no longer engaging with idiots.

PS I already asked you about the GERS data (HS2) - which you ignored, 

so don't expect me to be doing anything.

PPS I don't know what a "Nat" is but I don't support the SNP. 

 

Bye. 

Good. I'm happy with that.

Instead of looking for scapegoats and conspiracies around trivia like HS2, perhaps you should be looking at the big economic questions around currency, deficit, borrowing etc etc, that no-one that supports separation,  ever, ever answers.

[JudyJudyJudy]

13 years delay into an enquiry about historic child abuse in Scotland ! Shameful . How are the SNP gonna spin that one ? 

[Sub4TiddlerMurray]

3 hours ago, Enzo Chiefo said:

The Nationalists certainly do live in their own wee fantasy world.  

You do realise that the £1826 per capita public spending in Scotland,  comes directly via the Barnett consequentials, courtesy of rUK taxpayers.

Boasting about higher spending while lamenting the source of the extra spending, is the SNP all over.

To make it easy for all the Sturgeon disciples out there; last year, we raised £67 bn in taxes but spent £99bn, which includes the small amounr of defence spending,  £3.5 bn or so. That was an exceptional year due to furlough etc but recent years have had deficits of £15bn, covered by rUK.

 

Again, I'll ask; what area of spending would Scotland cut if it were separate,  to make up the £15bn shortfall from the loss of Barnett??

 

 

 

Lovely. I see how this works with you:

• You make claims about class sizes, crime, NHS, etc. to paint the Scottish Government in a poor light as if there's a huge crisis where none exists. 
• I give you some facts that prove what you said was wrong.
• You reply by ignoring the facts and instead deflecting with some other half-baked claim.

The tax raised in Scotland (as with every other area of the UK outside London) does not include the vast majority of Corporation Tax...because the vast majority of FTSE and other large companies declare their taxes in London. That is why every region of the UK apart from London and the south west shows a large deficit (e.g using the GERS calculations). This is why Yorkshire & Teeside, for example, have a significantly higher deficit than Scotland.

 

The Barnett Formula is simply a way to calculate the proportion of public spending that should be paid by each of the devolved nations after England has it's cut and so-called UK expenditure is deducted. It is calculated based on population size and not as some sort of freebie to Scotland. In other words, Barnett is just a way to make sure every UK nation pays it's share.

 

Scotland then has to pay a share of defence (£42.2 billion), the Royal Family (£67 million) the renovation of Westminster Palace (£4 billion), the Heathrow expansion (£61 billion by 2050) and HS2 (England only project; over £100 billion). We also have to pay a share of the UK debt interest, which over the past 30 years has Scotland has had to pay as much as £126b.

 

So, to answer your question, we will cut Trident, HS2, Westminster Palace, Heathrow....and any other UK vanity projects or empire legacy costs. pretty much that's it. Because we will start raising our own corporation taxes and by rejoining the EU we will qualify for financial support. We will take back control of our coastline, meaning the multi-£billion wind farm rights that currently go to the Crown Estate will come to us. And...I haven't even mentioned oil.

 

Maybe you could return the courtesy by answering my question.

 

 

 

 

 

[Roxy Hearts]

3 hours ago, Enzo Chiefo said:

The GERS figures are published by the Scot Gov and approved by independent economists. 

The deficit is the difference between the money we raise and the money we spend, income and expenditure. 

The Scottish deficit is several times higher than the rUK deficit. We would have to cover that £12-£15bn shortfall before we even start borrowing at equivalent UK levels.

 

You don't believe the figures so perhaps you could tell us which parts are incorrect?

 

GERS! Naive garbage. The SNP only use them as that's all they've got to go on. No one in their right mind believes them. Do you ever source information that puts our country in a positive set of circumstances?

 

I appreciate you support the union but you're tiresome. There's hundreds of thousands of Scots that don't believe a word from any UK minister or "independent" sources!

 

Try thinkingc

[Roxy Hearts]

 

14 minutes ago, Sub4TiddlerMurray said:

 

Lovely. I see how this works with you:

• You make claims about class sizes, crime, NHS, etc. to paint the Scottish Government in a poor light as if there's a huge crisis where none exists. 
• I give you some facts that prove what you said was wrong.
• You reply by ignoring the facts and instead deflecting with some other half-baked claim.

The tax raised in Scotland (as with every other area of the UK outside London) does not include the vast majority of Corporation Tax...because the vast majority of FTSE and other large companies declare their taxes in London. That is why every region of the UK apart from London and the south west shows a large deficit (e.g using the GERS calculations). This is why Yorkshire & Teeside, for example, have a significantly higher deficit than Scotland.

 

The Barnett Formula is simply a way to calculate the proportion of public spending that should be paid by each of the devolved nations after England has it's cut and so-called UK expenditure is deducted. It is calculated based on population size and not as some sort of freebie to Scotland. In other words, Barnett is just a way to make sure every UK nation pays it's share.

 

Scotland then has to pay a share of defence (£42.2 billion), the Royal Family (£67 million) the renovation of Westminster Palace (£4 billion), the Heathrow expansion (£61 billion by 2050) and HS2 (England only project; over £100 billion). We also have to pay a share of the UK debt interest, which over the past 30 years has Scotland has had to pay as much as £126b.

 

So, to answer your question, we will cut Trident, HS2, Westminster Palace, Heathrow....and any other UK vanity projects or empire legacy costs. pretty much that's it. Because we will start raising our own corporation taxes and by rejoining the EU we will qualify for financial support. We will take back control of our coastline, meaning the multi-£billion wind farm rights that currently go to the Crown Estate will come to us. And...I haven't even mentioned oil.

 

Maybe you could return the courtesy by answering my question.

 

 

 

 

 

Good post. He'll be apoplectic with rage. How dare you question his valid credentials. UK is always right!

[Auldbenches]

1 hour ago, JamesM48 said:

13 years delay into an enquiry about historic child abuse in Scotland ! Shameful . How are the SNP gonna spin that one ? 

Have of those who were involved in deciding to set up a public enquiry voted against it.  I'd like to know who and why.  

That came from John Swinney. 

Edited September 29, 2021 by Auldbenches

[JudyJudyJudy]

38 minutes ago, Auldbenches said:

Have of those who were involved in deciding to set up a public enquiry voted against it.  I'd like to know who and why.  

That came from John Swinney. 

I  Don’t know but Labour also delayed it too apparently