[Closed] Osbourne says no to currency union.

[url= http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0044/00446019.pdf ]Latest official Scottish numbers[/url] Might read through this later, but until then, here's [url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-26541575 ]the BBC's[/url] take on it.

Spin those figures thm,spin em like the wind!

The deceitful one has already done the "quick spin" cycle Duckman...The figures speak for themselves, hence your need to avoid them and attempt to make a dig. I understand fully why you need to do this, it's the same for the decetiful one. Fiscal policy involves raising taxes and spending/investing money. Guess which one the deceitful one spoke about and which one he ignored yesterday. Mister on-eye strikes again. How utterly unsurprising.

The current state of Scotlands finances, the trend, the drivers and the vulnerability to those drivers are as clear as highland spring water. The only opaqueness is how you marry these facts with the fiction of la, la land economics. That is like a peaty bog.

For those that are interested In facts there was plenty of real analysis published on future tax revenues yesterday and in particular the likelihood (or not) of oIl tax revenues returning to 2011-12 levels quickly.

(Good job there are no GNI figures for Scotland to show the oil industry's contribution more accurately. GDP is so convenient for the deceitful one isn't it?)

It's really funny (in a sad way) when the No campaign get so excited over figures showing Scotland is not doing so well financially. "We're rubbish - yay!"

Of course they hey don't bother mentioning that these are one-year figures and there are good reasons for the drop - long-term figures show Scotland having a perfectly healthy economy.

Oh, and of course these fluctuations in the oil market are why we should have an oil fund.

teamhurtmore - Member
The deceitful one has already done the "quick spin" cycle Duckman...The figures speak for themselves, hence your need to avoid them and attempt to make a dig

I see...I assume you are referring to AS as the "decetiful one" You then insist we should use the figures you want us to,and not GDP...(Which has always been good enough for rUK) Clearly the BBC is biased towards the indy camp as they then report on it,if only they had had the good sense to consult you first,then they might not have avoided the figures that are speaking for themselves 😀
Also for somebody who frequently lets his scorn for indy supporters show through,and has often suggested better together are not actually bullying and we are just too touchy,you are VERY sensitive as to what constitutes a dig.

Do you see no conflict in these two statements from yourself.

Mister on-eye strikes again. How utterly unsurprising.

([b]Good job[/b] there are no GNI figures for Scotland to show the oil industry's contribution more accurately. GDP is so convenient for the deceitful one isn't it?)

So the figures you want do not exist,but AS is one eyed for using the ones that do? I thought you had agreed to play the ball and not the man?

Please don't rush to join the troll. Read what I said instead. I will check to see if you can raise your game by coffee time.

P.S. You should consider all the figures available. Like currency options, they all have pros and cons. Neither should be used in isolation, hence I didn't say that did I? Of course, yesterday's data was a snap shot. In isolation they tell a limited story. More interesting is the insight they give into the drivers of the economy and especially the dichotomy between the split in the economy between the onshore bit (where most spending is concentrated) and the offshore bit (which drives a large part of the revenue, tax, is concentrated) and why this is important when deciphering la la land economics.

You can look at the Elgin hiccup in two ways too ie, a simple "one off" or a symptom of recent under-investments. Depending on your view, you can decide on your own sensitivity of future tax revenue forecasts (among other factors).

Of course, the BBC issue is a red herring but an understanding of national accounting and availability of statistics is required first.

Okay, that's it - Better Together, you've really gone too far this time:

[img] [/img]

Fewer. [u]Fewer![/u]

Alastair Darling just making stuff up is one thing - this is so much worse.

Always fun to see how much you can extrapolate from a one year trend.

Ah another fine example of the campaign Mr Darling characterised as "relentlessly positive"

😆 at that picture

Cut here for fewer grammar!

Sheesh,hyper sensitive Jocks...I wonder if somebody will pass any remark on that pic,y'ken maybe somebody who has frequently commented on the SNP's scare tactics...

@bencooper.

I've got to say that I've been against independence from the start.

But with that advert, I am now completely in favour. Who cares about the economy, defense, oil, or whatnot? If as a nation we cannot even get our grammar right, we have no right to continue to exist.

It's a crass advert.

Is there a better source confirming the advert is genuine? WoS is a nasty little arsewipe and he seems to be the only one who has a copy of it.

WoS is a nasty little arsewipe

Care to elaborate?

bencooper - Member
Care to elaborate?

I thought he was a dickwad after posting this on twitter:

Ben Fogle ?@Benfogle Mar 6

A week in Scotland and I'm reminded how much I like Scots and Scotland. Please don't leave us..........

Who appointed him spokesman of Scotland 😆 ? So I went through the comments, and saw this:
[URL= http://i.imgur.com/fH4gTEal.pn g" target="_blank">http://i.imgur.com/fH4gTEal.pn g"/> [/IMG][/URL]

I wondered if that was a true quote, and it is, but massively out of context. However he comes across as a complete bellend on the thread it's from nonetheless. Turns out he's a video game reviewer living in Somerset who doesn't take kindly to criticism 🙂

[URL= http://i.imgur.com/l5jYofTl.pn g" target="_blank">http://i.imgur.com/l5jYofTl.pn g"/> [/IMG][/URL]

So with that in mind, it seems he is quite happy to throw obnoxious comments out at people whenever he likes, but throws the toys out of the pram whenever somebody posts something he disagrees with.

So as I said, I'll be waiting for a better source on those ads. 😆

I'm a Yes voter and can't take anything WoS says seriously, it's so biased that I have a hard time accepting any of it. Bit out of order to attack the man in such way though, even if he is (allegedly) a bit of a dick.

Hmm, a few random screenshots which may or may not be genuine.

I'm not defending him - I don't know him in the slightest - but WoS does provide facts and analysis that more mainstream media sources don't.

bencooper - Member

Hmm, a few random screenshots which may or may not be genuine.

I'm not defending him - I don't know him in the slightest - but WoS does provide facts and analysis that more mainstream media sources don't.

How you feel about my screengrabs is how I feel about the ads he posted.
Anyhow, the shots I took are from just now, the pagese all still online, just google the text from them and you'll see. Even posting some of those things jokingly is deeply unpleasant in my view.

But anyway all I'm saying is that I'm taking his posts with a healthy pinch of salt. If a mainstream source runs with it I'd be more inclined to believe it was genuine.

bencooper - Member

Hmm, a few random screenshots which may or may not be genuine.

So WoS's 'random screen shot' is genuine but the other ones aren't?

But mainstream sources don't run with this stuff, that's the point - when an independent academic showed that the BBC was strongly biased towards the No campaign, the BBC attacked him.

When the mainstream media isn't being impartial, you have to look to other sources as well.

So WoS's 'random screen shot' is genuine but the other ones aren't?

I don't see what he'd get out of faking them. He said they were leaked to him. He just got £100k through crowdsourced funding to help run a news site, it'd blow his credibility if he faked stuff like that.

Of course the leaker could have faked it.

It may provide analysis.

But that doesn't mean it provides facts.

When the mainstream media isn't being impartial, you have to look to other sources as well.

Yup, you need to look to other sources and asses their credibility and inherent biases too.

[url= http://futureukandscotland.ac.uk/blog ]http://futureukandscotland.ac.uk/blog[/url] is still the best source i've seen for being objective and really getting into some of the nitty gritty.

Yup, you need to look to other sources and asses their credibility and inherent biases too.

Absolutely. Newsnet Scotland and the National Collective are also good.

But here's an example of something where WoS facts contradict the mainstream media - according to WoS, [url= http://wingsoverscotland.com/a-letter-from-standard-life/ ]"Standard Life currently has no plans to relocate or transfer parts of our operations out of Scotland"[/url].

If that letter is true (and other sources in other places say similar) then it's very useful info to have.

Here's a poll from the Daily Record[url=http:// http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/referendum-new-poll-puts-support-3236690 ] Uncomfortable reading for Scottish Labour[/url]
Support for independence at an all time high though still behind . The poll shows labour is making no in roads against the snp .

Please don't rush to join the troll.

I assume you mean me - I am not sure it is trolling to point out that you are not neutral
We have both been saying it , as have others, since the start of this thread. Your hatred of AS is clear and not denied yet you are "neutral"
Its not a great argument hence why you have not said the BBC or the CS or the Bof E chair speaks like you do on this issue. No one neutral speaks like you do.. you may not like this fact but it is not a troll to point it out to you.

The survation link to Dumbledo.... sorry, Gordimhors poll

http://survation.com/2014/03/new-scottish-voting-intention-polling/

Referendum

In the referendum, voters will be asked, “Should Scotland be an independent country”. If this referendum were held today, do you think you would vote “Yes” or “No”?

Yes: 39% (+1)

No: 48% (+1)

Undecided: 13% (-3)

Voting intention

Scottish parliamentary elections (May 2016) – constituency vote:

Labour: 34% (+3%)

Conservative: 13% (nc)

SNP: 45% (+1)

Liberal Democrat: 5% (-1)

Another party (Net): 3% (-3%)

Scottish parliament (May 2016) – regional list vote:*

Labour : 28%

Conservative: 11%

SNP: 40%

Liberal Democrat: 7%

Scottish Green Party: 8%

- See more at: http://survation.com/2014/03/new-scottish-voting-intention-polling/#sthash.v4Ggnf9f.dpuf

These figures show little change from previous polling, with the SNP continuing to enjoy high levels of support in terms of forthcoming elections to the Scottish and Westminster parliaments, but the Nationalists have not managed to significantly increase support for the ‘Yes’ campaign. This may reflect a hardening of views on the independence question, with polls consistently showing support for a ‘No’ vote at a margin similar to that found in this poll. 39% in favour of independence is the highest level of support seen this year, but by a very narrow margin, and within the margin of error. - See more at: http://survation.com/2014/03/new-scottish-voting-intention-polling/#sthash.v4Ggnf9f.dpuf

How can you accuse the BBC of being biased??? The Scotsman published research yesterday arguing the they have portrayed the deceitful one as a "figure of fun." Are they not correct to maintain and uphold their high standards of integrity?

Well it would be funny if the implications were not so serious.....

[url= http://http://www.heraldscotland.com/mobile/politics/referendum-news/bbc-chief-rejects-claims-of-referendum-coverage-bias.23666472?_=a180152c243a35cdb26fe784a848f6e030b4644d ]Heralds report[/url]
The other side of the story on the independent report.
The BBC are claiming factual inaccuracies in his report.

The BBC are claiming factual inaccuracies in his report.

They are. And the BBC's claims were responded to in detail - the factual inaccuracies are things like a couple of programmes broadcast a day later than noted in the data, stuff like that.

Do you think if we stuck Bencooper and Teamhurtmore on a merry go round we'd achieve perpetual motion?

However, BBC bosses completely rejected the allegations, insisting the report contained factual inaccuracies with quotes from people who did not feature in its reports and lines that its journalists did not say.

Yeah just minor things.

In the mass of statistics, yes.

WoS is a horrid site. A place where nationalists can vent their spleen and massage egos. It is a topsy turvy world when lack of BBC neutrality is berrated, then propaganda sites like WoS are used as a reliable source of the truth.

Recently WoS had a scary picture of a Spanish Joan Rivers lookalike, who is a descendant of the Stuarts, taken from the tabloid press. (I can't even remember her name). The site tried to claim the the No campaign were scaremongering by saying she may become the future queen of iScotland.

The site seems to do this regularly. Use sensationalist tabloid headlines against the better together campaign.

I am sure top journalistic jobs will come to the people that run these sites in our 'brave new world', then we will see if it is possible to speak up against them.

I am sure top journalistic jobs will come to the people that run these sites in our 'brave new world', then we will see if it is possible to speak up against them.

Hows the for shit stirring fear-mongering ffs.

Looking at that WoS better together posters.

There is actually sod all coming up to verify it. Even some of the posters on WoS are using "if it's real"

Recently WoS had a scary picture of a Spanish Joan Rivers lookalike, who is a descendant of the Stuarts, taken from the tabloid press. (I can't even remember her name). The site tried to claim the the No campaign were scaremongering by saying she may become the future queen of iScotland.

Can't find that on WoS. I remember the story, but not certain it was WoS who covered it. Was it claimed that the story came from the No campaign, or was it just an example of unionist propaganda?

Do you think if we stuck Bencooper and Teamhurtmore on a merry go round we'd achieve perpetual motion?

teamhurtmore - Member
How can you accuse the BBC of being biased??? The Scotsman published research yesterday arguing the they have portrayed the deceitful one as a "figure of fun." Are they not correct to maintain and uphold their high standards of integrity?...

The BBC is so badly biased towards the UK side we don't watch it anymore. It is the [u]British[/u] Broadcasting Service after all.

The Scotsman should be renamed the Anglophile Propagandist. It has not published the truth for quite some time. The Times gives a far better and more balanced view, although it is pro UK.

The BBC is so badly biased towards the UK side we don't watch it anymore. It is the British Broadcasting Service after all.

That proportional representation isn't it 😉 , the BBC is representing the views of the 62 million people that haven't voted for a referendum rather than the 1 million who did.

irelanst - Member
That proportional representation isn't it , the BBC is representing the views of the 62 million people that haven't voted for a referendum rather than the 1 million who did.

🙂

It's the BBC Scotland that we no longer believe. We know what to expect from the English Broadcasting Service. 🙂

Actually it disillusioned me somewhat. When I lived overseas I'd occasionally hear claims that the BBC was just the UK's propaganda unit rather than an unbiased commentator, but I didn't believe it.

Having been on the receiving end of how they are treating the independence debate I have formed the opinion that if Alex Salmond won a billion pounds, it would be reported by the BBC as "Scotland's First Minister has crushing money problems", or if they found a photo of him as a babe in a bath with another kid "Salmond revealed to have exposed himself to underage child".

I've become a fan of Al-Jazeera and other foreign media, because with no irons in the fire, they will give both sides of the issue fairly.

That's all we ask, fair reporting.

I've become a fan of Al-Jazeera and other foreign media, because with no irons in the fire, they will give both sides of the issue fairly.

Agreed (not necessarily with Al-Jazeera) but the general gist of what your saying.

There's some worryingly one side outlets out there. You don't expect these pro yes sites like WoS or Newsnetscotland to be anything but biased. But the BBC should, in theory be above it.

ben, you will find it if you click on your own link from page 37. The link titled "other gems from project fear", takes you straight to WoS where Joan Rivers appears. The particular post should be easy to find as you have posted an image of Joan Rivers there.

Is it bias or just a function of the situation? As an independent Scotland is a change from the status quo, you'd expect more questions challenging the change. It seems human nature prefers to challenge change and accept the status quo.

footflaps - Member
Is it bias or just a function of the situation?...

I think it's bias because of the very selective use of only negative facts. It's so blatant that even some No supporters I know are getting cranky about it - along the lines of "Do they think we're stupid?"

(Not that that will change their vote because they're Tories 🙂 )

I don't think BBC Scotland is biased but I do believe its coverage has been shoddy. I read about budget cuts and lack of time to make programmes. See Derek Batemans blog. I used to rely on BBC news ...no longer.

[quote=bencooper]When the mainstream media [s]isn't being impartial[/s] doesn't agree with you, you have to look to [s]other[/s] far more biased sources [s]as well.[/s] which do

I don't think that a part of the media holding an anti-independence editorial line is in itself bias.

But the selective use of negatives, total omission of positives, and the distortion of what has actually been said is bias.

ben, you will find it if you click on your own link from page 37

Ah, yes - odd it didn't come up when I searched WoS.

bencooper » When the mainstream media isn't being impartial doesn't agree with you, you have to look to other far more biased sources as well. which do

Well yes - everyone rads the media that agrees with their own opinions 😉

There's another effect to consider when reading the mainstream media about, well, anything - the [url= http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/65213-briefly-stated-the-gell-mann-amnesia-effect-is-as-follows-you ]Gell-Mann Amnesia Effect[/url]

There's another effect to consider when reading the mainstream media about, well, anything - the Gell-Mann Amnesia Effect

Which would be worth taking into account when reading reports which contain simple factual inaccuracies wouldn’t it? Such as “the factual inaccuracies are things like a couple of programmes broadcast a day later than noted in the data, stuff like that.” Wouldn’t considering the Gell-Mann Amnesia Effect make you question whether any of the conclusions of the report were accurate if they couldn’t get the simple facts right?

No, because I understand the difference between a small measurement error in one datum of a data set, and a major error in the conclusion of a paper.

I think that's a pretty good example of confirmation bias!

Och, ah'll let Lady Alba sort it oot...

Cracking video that, and a mate of mine is in it/help make it. Good stuff.

Devo max is back on the cards

Backing the position of Scottish Conservative leader Ruth Davidson, Mr Cameron added: "Giving the Scottish Parliament greater responsibility for raising more of the money it spends - that's what Ruth believes, and I believe it too."

The prime minister said: "Here's the re-cap. Vote 'Yes' - that is total separation.

"Vote 'No' - that can mean further devolution, more power to the Scottish people and their parliament, but with the crucial insurance policy that comes with being part of the UK."

Can mean so no actual commitment...Politician being a politician shocker

Aye, I'd trust him as far as I could throw him.

Now it has come from the PM, perhaps Scottish government can sit down with UK government to discuss preconditions of devo max to allow it to work.

I can think of some politicians I could not throw as far as CMD. Dear leader is a bit more portly.

They have had plenty time to think of Devo Max.

If they introduce it before the referendum, then we may actually believe them.

Now, let's all go out and watch the pigs fly by.... 🙂

There's a big difference between between more devolution can be discussed and devo max

Beware Tories and their promises:

[img] [/img]

@ben - was that a broken promise, you have devolution ?

And I thought Thatcher was dead. Silly me.

@ben - was that a broken promise, you have devolution ?

Thatcher made that pledge in 1979. We got devolution in 1997, courtesy of a Labour government.

So yes, I'd say that was a broken promise.

And I thought Thatcher was dead. Silly me.

Thatcher is dead. Thatcherism is alive and healthier than ever.

When will CMD grow up,to be a statesman and negotiator? Naive to play this card so early. AS on the rocks and credibility declining every time he opens his mouth. Far better to let him condemn himself daily (irrespective of any poll movement) for now. Poor tactics, poor tactics.

Giving the Scottish Parliament greater responsibility for raising more of the money it spends

Translation: we're going to keep taking all the oil money, we're going to give less of it back by getting rid of Barnett, so the Scottish Parliament will control a greater percentage.

Cameron is a PR man. He's very, very good at saying the opposite of what people thinks he's saying.

Meanwhile, Theresa May says she's going to demand passport checks at the border. Yeah, right 😉

He's very, very good at saying the opposite of what people thinks he's saying

I'm not sure, I understood "Giving the Scottish Parliament greater responsibility for raising more of the money it spends" to mean Scotland should offset a bit more of it's deficit by controlling its spending, that's pretty much what he's said isn't it?

Whereas,"we're going to keep taking all the oil money, we're going to give less of it back by getting rid of Barnett" means Scotland will raise exactly the same amount but rely on the Westminster to control, rather than subsidies it's spending. As someone who's responsible for the whole of the UK, not just Scotland, that seems fair enough doesn't it?

I disagree there THM. The devo max option should be played early and used to maximum effect for the remaining campaign as long as it is sincere and meaningful. This is ground the Yes camp cannot touch and will make them appear negative and bitter. This would be a positive move and I feel in tune with the large majority of Scots.

Let sites like WoS scare monger about what they think the gutter press is saying to convince Scots to vote No.
Let them also bring back the evil ghost of Thatcher to scare the young 16 and 17 year olds to vote the correct way.

If there was a credible and guaranteed Devo Max offer on the table, I'd quite likely vote No.

But there isn't even an offer, and if there was I wouldn't trust it without primary legislation in place to enforce it.

When will CMD grow up,to be a statesman and negotiator?

I might be reading more into it that I should but I thought it was quite a pithy comment, I took it to mean what I said up there ^ and the later parts to mean vote yes and you’re on your own, vote no and you will have the safety net of the rest of the UK should it all go a bit Greek; you will have more devolved responsibilities but can no longer rely on the rest of the UK to support your policies.

can no longer rely on the rest of the UK to support your policies

The rest of the UK does not "support" Scotland - Scotland pays more into the union than we get back.

The rest of the UK does not "support" Scotland - Scotland pays more into the union than we get back.

According to? GERS says different, HMRC say different.

They do? Figures from HMRC:

http://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/6881

And GERS says the tax take is £800 per person higher in Scotland.

If there was a credible and guaranteed Devo Max offer on the table, I'd quite likely vote No.

THM even when having a go at Dave you save the killer thrust for AS 😀
You really do hate him dont you> I shall stop mentioning it now FWIW.

Basically he is doing what AS is, promising something he wont deliver on to secure votes. I doubt anyone, on either side believes him , or AS, all that much tbh when they speak.

I also think it was rather weak to come to scotland, refuse to debate with AS saying it is up to scotland and then doing this ...good politics I guess but not admirable.

oh come on, that's the revenue part of the equation, how about the spending? You know, the £12,300 per person that Scotland spends vs the UK spend 0f £11000.

And GERS says the tax take is £800 per person higher in Scotland.