Scotland's First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, calls for fresh independence referendum

[Pua]

It seems we're just going to get nothing but misinformation in this thread, so one more response and I'm probably done.

Obviously its based on if Scotland had voted for independence. Tax revenues are similar to the rest of the UK, yet spending per head is £1,200 higher in Scotland. It doesn't take an expert to work out that means you would be running a deficit. They're official figures that not even the SNP have disputed as far as i'm aware.

No, that's not what it's based on. GERS figures are, 100%, based on Scotland as part of the UK. And, as I already explained, they don't even do that especially well, because Scottish spending and revenue isn't properly established throughout the figures. Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited, one of the "big four" financial firms (and ostensibly right-wing), had this to say about GERS:

"However, GERS data is produced for Scotland as part of the UK - it does not model scenarios for an independent Scotland in which the Scottish government would be enabled to make its own fiscal choices".

There's no serious economist that takes GERS figures seriously, for reasons I've already highlighted and have just done so again. Arguing otherwise is utter nonsense.

What incentive is there for the UK to join a currency union with Scotland and take on all risks that come with it?

I already told you; the avoidance of another dent in the British economy, an economy that hasn't recovered from 2008 and hasn't actually recovered beyond inflation.

Also a strange decision to vote for independence and then willingly lose significant influence over your own monetary policy isn't it?

Well, yeah. Personally, I wouldn't want a Sterling zone. I'm simply saying what's laughably more likely than any other eventuality, because the UK government would understand, upon independence, that saying "no pound" isn't in their best interests.

So what, Scotland's economy is going to miraculously transform over night?

You act like not a single penny of government money is spent in Scotland. The Scots receive more per head than the rest of the UK.

Scotland's economy certainly stands a better chance of transforming overnight if, you know, Scottish politicians had control over it. And while Scots receive more per head in public spending, Scotland also contributes more to the UK treasury per capita.

You really think that is going to cover the £15bn black hole? Many of those policies will potentially cost more money, not save it.

Haha, so we're at £15b now? Wasn't it £9b? And based on what? GERS figures that every major economist, across the spectrum, has stated are utterly irrelevant when talking about Scotland's finances?

Ah I see, its all just an anti-Scottish conspiracy, even though the SNP haven't even challenged the figures.

The SNP cannot challenge the figures. They are allocated money to spend, based on a set of figures they have no input on compiling, the methodology of that compilation, or even where they come from in the first place. All the Scottish government can do is spend the money it's allocated, and account for it.

Mot countries have a deficit, but not one that is 10% of their GDP. You would have the highest deficit in the EU, and by a long way.

As already explained, and as you've obviously completely ignored, Scotland doesn't run a deficit at all. It can't. It doesn't control its economy.

Westminster notionally runs a deficit on Scotland's behalf, and credits Scotland with the debt.

Find an economist that disagrees with this, and we'll talk about it some more.

Its been mentioned and debunked about 3-4 times now, but suffice it to say, trying to explain to people who dont actively follow the discussion is a wasted effort.

Sadly, that's where we are. Even those who are following the discussion, are simply ignoring the bits that obliterate their pre-conceived (and typically wrong) conclusions.

It's a real shame.

[Crispin]

Set them free in my opinion.
Scotland is like that big annoying spot growing on the end of your nose that just needs to be popped.
UK should allow it and then cut all ties to its high drug and high unemployment ridden shit hole once and for all.

No matter though, wee krankie has got your backs covered...

So the UK was the EU's Scotland.

[Noradin]

They were not my numbers

You were the one talking about "400.000" as the difference between 642,869 and 383,932, were you not?
We have your post on record here.
But be free to present the source if that 400,000 is not your numbers, if you do we know how much blindly you trust your sources no matter how absurd.

[Deleted]

They may take our lives, but they will never take our freedom

join the eu & they'll have both.

[Tinch]

There's no serious economist that takes GERS figures seriously, for reasons I've already highlighted and have just done so again. Arguing otherwise is utter nonsense.

erm... How about the IFS?

I already told you; the avoidance of another dent in the British economy, an economy that hasn't recovered from 2008 and hasn't actually recovered beyond inflation.

Any actual analysis of this? Genuinely curious because it would have to be pretty significant for rUK to take on the risks that a currency union with Scotland would bring.

The SNP cannot challenge the figures. They are allocated money to spend, based on a set of figures they have no input on compiling, the methodology of that compilation, or even where they come from in the first place. All the Scottish government can do is spend the money it's allocated, and account for it.

If the figures are as fudged as you suggest, surely the SNP would be saying something to that effect?

As already explained, and as you've obviously completely ignored, Scotland doesn't run a deficit at all. It can't. It doesn't control its economy.

As you completely ignored - its obviously a projection based on the resources an independent Scotland would have.

Find an economist that disagrees with this, and we'll talk about it some more.

Again i'll refer you to the IFS, unless you're going to tell me they're a part of a big anti-Scottish conspiracy as well.

[Rockyreg]

You were the one talking about "400.000" as the difference between 642,869 and 383,932, were you not?
We have your post on record here.
But be free to present the source if that 400,000 is not your numbers, if you do we know how much blindly you trust your sources no matter how absurd.

Wind your neck in mate. First of all I don't have the figures apart from memory, nobody has said otherwise so I assume they are fairly accurate (i.e. it shows that 'more people voted to stay in the UK than to remain in the EU as part of the UK'

The figures (not presented by me) you are disputing are are Scottish majorities in both the independence (383,932 No) and EU Referendum (642,869 remain). Simply stated that that in pure numbers of people nearly 400,000 additional people voted to stay in the UK than to remain in the UK as part of the UK (approximately 2m people voted No in Independence Referendum against 1.6m people voting to Remain in the EU Referendum).

- - - Updated - - -

It seems we're just going to get nothing but misinformation in this thread, so one more response and I'm probably done.

You need to accept that much of the misinformation is coming from you.

Scotland's economy certainly stands a better chance of transforming overnight if, you know, Scottish politicians had control over it. And while Scots receive more per head in public spending, Scotland also contributes more to the UK treasury per capita.

The trouble is the 'control' the Scottish politician could have are mainly centred around tax and spending. You need to acknowledge that an Independent Scotland would have to make tough choices on either spending, taxation or both to bring the deficit down

With regards to the bolded, the most recent GERS report says that this is incorrect.

http://www.gov.scot/Publications/2016/08/2132

[Noradin]

The figures (not presented by me) you are disputing are are Scottish majorities in both the independence (383,932 No) and EU Referendum (642,869 remain). Simply stated that that in pure numbers of people nearly 400,000 additional people voted to stay in the UK than to remain in the UK as part of the UK (approximately 2m people voted No in Independence Referendum against 1.6m people voting to Remain in the EU Referendum).

Exactly, and that "400,000" is off by over 50%, because math tells us that the number would have been ~258,000, because that is the difference between those two numbers (642,896 and 383,932).
If you are trying to make the unrealted argument that the interest in the EU referendum was higher than in the independence one, then that is easily explained by the fact that more people might have been undecided either way in the first one because both sides had a part they wanted (it was presented as a choice betwen independence and staying in the EU) whereas in the second one it was easier for them to decide for one side.

[Rockyreg]

Exactly, and that "400,000" is off by over 50%, because math tells us that the number would have been ~258,000, because that is the difference between those two numbers (642,896 and 383,932).
If you are trying to make the unrealted argument that the interest in the EU referendum was higher than in the independence one, then that is easily explained by the fact that more people might have been undecided either way in the first one because both sides had a part they wanted (it was presented as a choice betwen independence and staying in the EU) whereas in the second one it was easier for them to decide for one side.

Right, I've found the figures:

Independence Referendum

• 3,619,915 - Total Votes
• 1,617,989 - Yes
• 2,001,926 - No
• 383,937 - Majority

EU Referendum

• 2,679,513 - Total Votes
• 1,661,191 - Remain
• 1,018,332 - Leave
• 642,859 - Majority

I never claimed that the difference between the majority was 400,000. I said that 'nearly 400,000 more people voted to stay in the UK (i.e. NO in the independence ref) than to remain the EU as part of the UK (i.e. REMAIN EU referendum). Now I have the figures its 340,735 so replace the 400,000 figure with this figure for accuracy.

My argument is that as 1m more people voted in the Independence referendum more credence should be given to that result, ergo more people felt strongly enough to vote to stay part of the UK than to remain in the EU as part of the UK.

Another poster claimed that the increased majority of 258k people was more relevant and that is what I disagreed with.

[Pua]

erm... How about the IFS?

I asked you to refer me to an economist, not a British government-funded think tank that (unsurprisingly, as a result) says roughly what the government thinks it should say. It was founded, largely, by a Conservative investment banker, for crying out loud.

Any actual analysis of this? Genuinely curious because it would have to be pretty significant for rUK to take on the risks that a currency union with Scotland would bring.

Yes. The Conservative Office for Budget Responsibility can't hide the figures. Britain is currently over £1.6 trillion in debt (over 80% of GDP), with a deficit that's currently running at over £40b a year in interest payments on the debt alone. It's interesting to note, that almost a third of that is owed to the Bank of England which means the government actually owes money to itself and this brings the deficit to around £30b. Arguing that Scotland somehow runs almost a third of this, all on its own, with a population of less than 10% of the UK, is so immediately and obviously laughable, it's hard to figure out how anyone ends up believing it.

But as it happens, this turns out an interesting and additional tax hike on Scotland that obviously wouldn't be paid upon independence.

If the figures are as fudged as you suggest, surely the SNP would be saying something to that effect?

Because they're explaining their Total Managed Expenditure (TME), using the vehicle of GERS. If I gave you twenty quid, and wanted to know how you spent it, they'd be "your" figures.

As you completely ignored - its obviously a projection based on the resources an independent Scotland would have.

Sigh.

No. No, it's not. Just look at the fucking figures presented in GERS for yourself. They do not account for Scotland being independent, and are largely guesswork of how the Scottish economy performs while in the United Kingdom.

You need to accept that much of the misinformation is coming from you.

Then prove it. Prove what I'm saying is wrong. So far, I've seen a lot of huffing and puffing, but my commentary is utterly beyond contest so far.

The trouble is the 'control' the Scottish politician could have are mainly centred around tax and spending. You need to acknowledge that an Independent Scotland would have to make tough choices on either spending, taxation or both to bring the deficit down.

1. Actually, the Scotland Act made it pretty clear that any additional revenue Scotland raised via taxation with these "new powers" would be offset in the Barnett payment. So if Scotland raised income tax to gain another £16m, that'd be taken away from the block grant.

2. I need to acknowledge no such thing, because nobody knows what Scotland's deficit is. As I've clearly established, with the help of respected economists from the right of the political spectrum, GERS is utterly useless as a barometer of where Scotland's finances actually sit. And as I've also pointed out, anyone that thinks Scotland is running a third of the national deficit, and a Conservative government just lets us do so, needs their head examined.

With regards to the bolded, the most recent GERS report says that this is incorrect.

No, it doesn't.

"Including an illustrative geographic share of North Sea, Scottish public sector revenue was estimated as £53.7 billion (7.9 per cent of UK revenue). Of this, £60 million was North Sea revenue".

My emphasis. It's an estimation, and doesn't break down where any of this spending or wealth creation actually comes from.

If you want another description of why using GERS is utterly silly, take if from Professor Richard Murphy. He concludes that:

1. We can't talk about Scottish GDP, because nobody knows what it is.
2. We can't talk about tax revenues, because nobody knows what they are.
3. We can't talk about spending, because those arbitrary numbers are unreliable.
4. We can't talk about trade, because the numbers are literally made up.

I'll quote his conclusion, just to accentuate the point (and he does it unusually succinctly for an economist):

"So two further issues, both serious. One is Westminster could pretty much manipulate this data at will. And two, nothing will be the same if Scotland leaves: a government of an independent Scotland will have a very different structure to that imposed now".

In short, forget about GERS if you want to talk about Scottish finance under independence. The numbers are designed, and as I already covered quite explicitly, to work in the Westminster government's favour.

You were the one talking about "400.000" as the difference between 642,869 and 383,932, were you not?
We have your post on record here.
But be free to present the source if that 400,000 is not your numbers, if you do we know how much blindly you trust your sources no matter how absurd.

Apologies, I missed this.

The numbers presented for the respective majorities are mine; they're a matter of public record, if you want to look them up. @Rockyreg was not claiming that 400,000 was the difference between the two, that number was presumably the additional people who voted in the Scottish independence referendum and didn't vote in the EU one.

The problem, of course, is that it's a meaningless number. It's dick-waving pedantry to avoid admitting that what I said, about Scots voting higher as a majority and percentage to stay in the EU, was absolutely correct.

[Tinch]

I asked you to refer me to an economist, not a British government-funded think tank that (unsurprisingly, as a result) says roughly what the government thinks it should say. It was founded, largely, by a Conservative investment banker, for crying out loud.

Yes. The Conservative Office for Budget Responsibility can't hide the figures. Britain is currently over £1.6 trillion in debt (over 80% of GDP), with a deficit that's currently running at over £40b a year in interest payments on the debt alone. It's interesting to note, that almost a third of that is owed to the Bank of England which means the government actually owes money to itself and this brings the deficit to around £30b. Arguing that Scotland somehow runs almost a third of this, all on its own, with a population of less than 10% of the UK, is so immediately and obviously laughable, it's hard to figure out how anyone ends up believing it.

The IFS receives a tiny fraction of their funding from the UK government, it's clearly available to view on their website. It regularly criticises UK government policy too.

I asked for analysis on the impact of Scotland leaving the currency union. You're just quoting me the UK's debt figures which has no relation to what I'm asking.

I don't see where else we can go with this debate anyway. Anyone who disagrees with your position you appear to label as a paid up shill of the UK government with an agenda against Scotland, there's not much anyone can say to you when you take a position like that.



Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

[Rockyreg]

Then prove it. Prove what I'm saying is wrong. So far, I've seen a lot of huffing and puffing, but my commentary is utterly beyond contest so far.

Where did you get the information from that tax revenues in scotland were higher per capita than the rest of the UK?

1. Actually, the Scotland Act made it pretty clear that any additional revenue Scotland raised via taxation with these "new powers" would be offset in the Barnett payment. So if Scotland raised income tax to gain another £16m, that'd be taken away from the block grant.

Do you expect that an independent Scotland will still receive the block grant?

2. I need to acknowledge no such thing, because nobody knows what Scotland's deficit is. As I've clearly established, with the help of respected economists from the right of the political spectrum, GERS is utterly useless as a barometer of where Scotland's finances actually sit. And as I've also pointed out, anyone that thinks Scotland is running a third of the national deficit, and a Conservative government just lets us do so, needs their head examined.

No, you need to provide some alternative evidence. In the meantime we'll just use the official data that the SNP is happy to use, the accountant you link also states the ''The real result may be better or worse than GERS says''. What makes you so sure you are on the right side of this? If incorrect are there any estimates of how much it could be incorrect? +/- 10%etc

No, it doesn't.

"Including an illustrative geographic share of North Sea, Scottish public sector revenue was estimated as £53.7 billion (7.9 per cent of UK revenue). Of this, £60 million was North Sea revenue".

My emphasis. It's an estimation, and doesn't break down where any of this spending or wealth creation actually comes from.

If you want another description of why using GERS is utterly silly, take if from Professor Richard Murphy. He concludes that:

1. We can't talk about Scottish GDP, because nobody knows what it is.
2. We can't talk about tax revenues, because nobody knows what they are.
3. We can't talk about spending, because those arbitrary numbers are unreliable.
4. We can't talk about trade, because the numbers are literally made up.

I'll quote his conclusion, just to accentuate the point (and he does it unusually succinctly for an economist):

"So two further issues, both serious. One is Westminster could pretty much manipulate this data at will. And two, nothing will be the same if Scotland leaves: a government of an independent Scotland will have a very different structure to that imposed now".

In short, forget about GERS if you want to talk about Scottish finance under independence. The numbers are designed, and as I already covered quite explicitly, to work in the Westminster government's favour.

Look all that guff you posted is irrelevant. You stated as a matter of fact, that Scotland pays more tax revenue per head than the rest of the UK. What 'facts' did you base this assertion on?

Apologies, I missed this.

The numbers presented for the respective majorities are mine; they're a matter of public record, if you want to look them up. @Rockyreg was not claiming that 400,000 was the difference between the two, that number was presumably the additional people who voted in the Scottish independence referendum and didn't vote in the EU one.

The problem, of course, is that it's a meaningless number. It's dick-waving pedantry to avoid admitting that what I said, about Scots voting higher as a majority and percentage to stay in the EU, was absolutely correct.

Excuse me, not once did I dispute your figures and say they were false. You also assume wrong as around 1m more people voted in the Independence referendum as a whole, and 340k more people voted to stay in the UK than wanted to remain in the EU as part of the UK. That too is a statement of fact and my argument is that because of the higher turnout, more of the electorate cared about staying in the UK than remaining in the EU as part of the UK.

That is my opinion, obviously its not yours but I would assume more people would agree with me.

[Pua]

The IFS receives a tiny fraction of their funding from the UK government, it's clearly available to view on their website. It regularly criticises UK government policy too.

If by "tiny" you mean over 60% then, yes, I suppose it's tiny.

But you did ask for an analysis on the impact of Scotland leaving the currency union, which I didn't really give you, so here it is.

I don't see where else we can go with this debate anyway. Anyone who disagrees with your position you appear to label as a paid up shill of the UK government with an agenda against Scotland, there's not much anyone can say to you when you take a position like that.

I'm not really labelling anyone, but victimhood is cute I suppose; particularly when it dawns on you that you're on the wrong side of a particular argument (I won't be arrogant and suggest I've never been there. We all have). What I've done is simply rubbish the notion that GERS tells anyone anything about an independent Scotland, which nobody has as yet contested - largely because anyone with any economic nous agrees.

As someone who's lived over half his life in England, I approached the 2014 referendum in Scotland as a relatively committed No. I owed the vote more than what I'd been told, did some relatively heavy independent research, and realised that all of the "Skintland" stuff was, is, and will ever be complete and utter horse-bollocks.

Will Scotland, upon independence, suddenly be a land of milk and honey? You know, similar to the Team America FAG view of pre-war Iraq? Will we suddenly become crown millionaires, like the Norwegians, who have a literal embarrassment of riches due to oil and gas revenues and a population and political climate very similar to Scotland? Will we suddenly be the economic and cultural beacon of hope for a world trapped in a vortex of right-wing populism (until Wilders in the Netherlands who, according to exit polls, has had his arse kicked)?

No. Of course not. Nobody should be that silly, or that gullible.

But I'm damn sure that better decisions on the future will be made by Scots, in Scotland, when compared to a nigh-permanent Conservative government that's already sold off most of the National Health Service and still can't balance the books despite their planned decade of austerity.

[Rockyreg]

No. No, it's not. Just look at the fucking figures presented in GERS for yourself. They do not account for Scotland being independent, and are largely guesswork of how the Scottish economy performs while in the United Kingdom.



Then prove it. Prove what I'm saying is wrong. So far, I've seen a lot of huffing and puffing, but my commentary is utterly beyond contest so far.



1. Actually, the Scotland Act made it pretty clear that any additional revenue Scotland raised via taxation with these "new powers" would be offset in the Barnett payment. So if Scotland raised income tax to gain another £16m, that'd be taken away from the block grant.

2. I need to acknowledge no such thing, because nobody knows what Scotland's deficit is. As I've clearly established, with the help of respected economists from the right of the political spectrum, GERS is utterly useless as a barometer of where Scotland's finances actually sit. And as I've also pointed out, anyone that thinks Scotland is running a third of the national deficit, and a Conservative government just lets us do so, needs their head examined.



No, it doesn't.

"Including an illustrative geographic share of North Sea, Scottish public sector revenue was estimated as £53.7 billion (7.9 per cent of UK revenue). Of this, £60 million was North Sea revenue".

My emphasis. It's an estimation, and doesn't break down where any of this spending or wealth creation actually comes from.

If you want another description of why using GERS is utterly silly, take if from Professor Richard Murphy. He concludes that:

1. We can't talk about Scottish GDP, because nobody knows what it is.
2. We can't talk about tax revenues, because nobody knows what they are.
3. We can't talk about spending, because those arbitrary numbers are unreliable.
4. We can't talk about trade, because the numbers are literally made up.

I'll quote his conclusion, just to accentuate the point (and he does it unusually succinctly for an economist):

"So two further issues, both serious. One is Westminster could pretty much manipulate this data at will. And two, nothing will be the same if Scotland leaves: a government of an independent Scotland will have a very different structure to that imposed now".

In short, forget about GERS if you want to talk about Scottish finance under independence. The numbers are designed, and as I already covered quite explicitly, to work in the Westminster government's favour.

lol, as an aside I also sourced this recent blog post discussing the ineptitude of the accountant in the article you linked to:

http://chokkablog.blogspot.co.uk/sea...&max-results=4

Makes your guy look like a complete tool

[Pua]

Where did you get the information from that tax revenues in scotland were higher per capita than the rest of the UK?

Well, here I suppose. The numbers are backed up by FullFact.

Do you expect that an independent Scotland will still receive the block grant?

Eh? Of course not.

What makes you so sure you are on the right side of this? If incorrect are there any estimates of how much it could be incorrect? +/- 10%etc

Because of what GERS was designed for.

Excuse me, not once did I dispute your figures and say they were false.

I wasn't saying that you did, I was trying to correct another poster who had incorrectly attributed the numbers (in the first instance) to you. My apologies if that wasn't clear.

That too is a statement of fact and my argument is that because of the higher turnout, more of the electorate cared about staying in the UK than remaining in the EU as part of the UK.

I didn't say it wasn't a fact. Actually, I've already went to pains in this discussion to point out that it's correct.

What I'm saying is that it doesn't matter. No election and/or referendum counts votes in this way, so I don't see why anyone would want to do it here unless they were trying to muddy what are very clear waters. You can only count the people that vote, and that's done by percentages because the numbers never match from one ballot to the next. That's why swings are done in points, and why percentages are always given with regard to majorities.

Trying to argue differently is simply being deliberately disingenuous, and it doesn't really wash. It might be appropriate to argue that those who didn't vote would have voted the way everyone else did (62-38), so feel free to work out the number of votes from there.

The bottom line?

Scotland voted to remain in two unions. The only way to sort out the constitutional disagreement is to return to the question on independence.

lol, as an aside I also sourced this recent blog post discussing the ineptitude of the accountant in the article you linked to:

http://chokkablog.blogspot.co.uk/sea...&max-results=4

Makes your guy look like a complete tool

Haha, Kevin Hague; dog food salesman, and not (repeat NOT) an economist. He's been soundly educated on Twitter over the last week, and refused three offers to appear on a panel with trained economists. He hasn't, and never has, had the slightest clue what he's on about. Like Stephen Daisley or David Torrance, he's an ethnic Brit that will rubbish Scottish independence no matter what evidence proves him wrong.

Read what the Cuthberts say about GERS. They're the experts.

I must admit, I was hoping it was him you quoted.

[Tinch]

But you did ask for an analysis on the impact of Scotland leaving the currency union, which I didn't really give you, so here it is.

You criticise me for using the IFS, yet you give me a source called Wings over Scotland, by a pro-independence blogger who apparently has a video gaming background and has outdated financial information (oil was over $100 a barrel at that point) as the focal point of his argument?

I used this as the basis of my position, with most economists contributing questioning what rUK would benefit from a currency union with Scotland: https://www.ft.com/content/e635505a-...2-00144feabdc0

I'm not really labelling anyone, but victimhood is cute I suppose; particularly when it dawns on you that you're on the wrong side of a particular argument (I won't be arrogant and suggest I've never been there. We all have). What I've done is simply rubbish the notion that GERS tells anyone anything about an independent Scotland, which nobody has as yet contested - largely because anyone with any economic nous agrees.

You haven't proved anyone wrong, you've stated why you think the GERS info is rubbish but you haven't provided any credible alternative analysis. Their analysis gives us an idea of what Scotland's economic position would be on day 1 of independence.

[Rockyreg]

Well, here I suppose. The numbers are backed up by FullFact.

Fuck me, so you are actually using data that not only is from 2013, but using GERS as its source, you know the source that you are attempting to discredit. You couldn't make it up!

Eh? Of course not.

So why did you reference the block grant when I just asked you to acknowledge that an independent Scotland would have to make tough choices on taxation and spending

Because of what GERS was designed for.

Who's this guy?

I wasn't saying that you did, I was trying to correct another poster who had incorrectly attributed the numbers (in the first instance) to you. My apologies if that wasn't clear.



I didn't say it wasn't a fact. Actually, I've already went to pains in this discussion to point out that it's correct.

What I'm saying is that it doesn't matter. No election and/or referendum counts votes in this way, so I don't see why anyone would want to do it here unless they were trying to muddy what are very clear waters. You can only count the people that vote, and that's done by percentages because the numbers never match from one ballot to the next. That's why swings are done in points, and why percentages are always given with regard to majorities.

Trying to argue differently is simply being deliberately disingenuous, and it doesn't really wash. It might be appropriate to argue that those who didn't vote would have voted the way everyone else did (62-38), so feel free to work out the number of votes from there.

The bottom line?

Scotland voted to remain in two unions. The only way to sort out the constitutional disagreement is to return to the question on independence.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on this. My argument is simply more people voted, therefore more people cared about that referendum in my opinion giving greater weight to the numbers voting.

Haha, Kevin Hague; dog food salesman, and not (repeat NOT) an economist. He's been soundly educated on Twitter over the last week, and refused three offers to appear on a panel with trained economists. He hasn't, and never has, had the slightest clue what he's on about. Like Stephen Daisley or David Torrance, he's an ethnic Brit that will rubbish Scottish independence no matter what evidence proves him wrong.

Read what the Cuthberts say about GERS. They're the experts.

I must admit, I was hoping it was him you quoted. [/QUOTE]

I did:

https://www.commonspace.scot/article...tlands-economy

Shes quite happy to damn the Scottish Government using these GERS figures.

Bascially your argument is that because GERS is not 100% accurate then it is rubbish, yet funnily enough the SNP was more than happy to use in in their white paper and they have been in control of the GERS data and methodology for nearly 10 years and they still can't make it show what they want it to.

[Tommi]

I see no ones mentioned anything about benefits spending. What will happen to those of us who cannot work? What happens to the money we get to live? How will Scotland pay for that? If it's a choice between staying in UK and getting same money I get now, or losing 50% and Scotland becomes independent, that's a no fucking brainer. UK all the way.

Worse still, what happens to peoples state pensions? Where will that come from? A lot of money spent in UK is for benefits/pensions. Would Scotland be able to pay for that off it's own back? People in their 40s+ will be thinking towards that as well, and with no guarantee from Scottish Government, they will vote to stay in UK.

Point is that the Scottish Government needs to win the right people, those looking for financial security in future. If given the choice of things going like it is, or complete uncertainty, the choice is very very clear.

[caervek]

Saw in the news that Sturgeon had struck out at May by claiming she was elected and May wasn't. Somebody should probably explain to her how an election works

[Deleted]

Saw in the news that Sturgeon had struck out at May by claiming she was elected and May wasn't. Somebody should probably explain to her how an election works

yeah, its when the people vote, and not 2500 Tory party members.

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

Didn't they already vote? How many votes is enough?