Surprised only 14% signed the recall?Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Printable View
Surprised only 14% signed the recall?Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
A total of 11,896 out of the 81,124 eligible constituents in Rutherglen and Hamilton West signed the petition.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
That exceeded the 10% threshold and means a by-election will take place
Bbc
Yes, was just surprised it only got to 14% with all the party activists out encouraging people to sign.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Maybe the yes voting constituents don't want to run the risk of a Labour win and decided it might be better just to keep Ferrier in place for now? Or maybe she's actually regarded as an OK MP despite her idiotic behaviour? Or maybe people just don't care that much?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
No idea. Doubt it’s the first one though because SNP were encouraging folk to sign as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by He's here!
Big test for both Yousaf and Sarwar. Yousaf will get a bit of a pass if SNP perform below expectations as just in job, Sarwar needs to show some progress though in what should be an easy win for Labour.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/p...paign=sharebar
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
5000 lead would be a massive swing, I don't think it's an easy winQuote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
It will be a very easy win for Labour. Tactical voting will see Tory voters swing in behind Labour. There about 8,000 of them to be had. And it’s a seat Labour won in 2017. I’d put my house on a Labour win.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Not an easy win at all. Despite Ferrier's behaviour and the mess the SNP are in there will remain the core vote for independence at any cost to contend with. A shop dummy could be standing for the SNP and still hoover up those votes. It will be interesting to see if Labour can in some way avoid that being the usual boring battleground.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
Oh stop it now. Is this you hedging your bets? Ferriers I behaviour, SNP in a mess, tactical voting between unionists, this only goes one way and if it doesn't then its a kick in the nuts to unionists but Labour in particular as they've been campaigning for monthsQuote:
Originally Posted by He's here!
I just did a quick search on recall petitions and the only one so far to have attracted more than a 20 per cent response was the one involving the jailed former Labour MP Fiona Onassanya.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
https://twitter.com/staylorish/statu...dxJXScFNwz8V4A
Transparent.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
No chance. Labour's to lose.Quote:
Originally Posted by He's here!
It's pretty much always been a swing seat. It was a labour seat before Ferrier (and a I think SNP before that, and Labour before that).
I wouldn't read too much into that outcome of a seat that has always flipped between the 2 parties.
Ferrier lost it in 2017 but stood again and won it back in 2019. Hopefully Labour can take it again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Since90+2
With the media's backing, they're strong favourites to take it. It would be an utter embarrassment for them if they were to fail.Quote:
Originally Posted by He's here!
Nothing to do with the SNP falling apart.Quote:
Originally Posted by HarpOnHibee
They had the media against them since 2010 and cruised to massive wins. That has been a constant and can't be blamed for the freefall they are inQuote:
Originally Posted by HarpOnHibee
I was referring to Labour, not the SNP. Considering the free ride Anas Sarwar has in Scotland and the complete reluctance of the media to challenge them over the 2 child cap policy, they should be winning this sort of seat reasonably comfortably. Failing to do so would be a disaster for them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
It will be rough night for the SNP. I don’t think there is much doubt about that. I don’t see it as a waste of time though. I want to see how Yousaf does as a campaigner. I want to see him fighting hard to win the seat no matter how hopeless it looks. How he performs here will give an indication how he will do at the GE next year. And when we lose, he should own it and quickly move on.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It's the same thing. The media was the same for both parties at the last election and snp had and a landslide. If it was a scientific experiment you'd say the media has been a constant and its something else causing the snp slide. Most probably the culture wars battle I thinkQuote:
Originally Posted by HarpOnHibee
They were the same for both parties in the previous election due to the anti-neoliberal Corbyn. They now have their top man in place and will no longer have a bad word to say about the branch party in Scotland. The SNP will continue to get it in the neck though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
That doesn't explain the umpteen other elections snp have skooshed including the 2021 Holyrood or 2015 GE. They have constantly been steady in the polls until December when they plummetedQuote:
Originally Posted by HarpOnHibee
I've just received my baby box and my house was up in flames moments later. I'm currently typing this at the Virgin Healthcare Homeless Shelter on a refurbished second hand iPad that Keir Starmer kindly loaned to me at a reasonable rate after I reassured him we would have no more than two children. Curse you Sturgeon! :grr:
(the baby box is fantastic, great policy)
Congratulations :agree:Quote:
Originally Posted by Diclonius
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diclonius
I thought you were serious when I read your first sentence, glad you were kidding :greengrin
congrats on the wee one :thumbsup:
Robin Harper quits Scottish Greens as party has 'lost the plot' - BBC News
There must be many within the SNP who rue the day they brought this lot on board for the sake of Sturgeon's majority.
I wouldn't think so. What was their alternative with the tories, labour and lib dems all grouping together at Holyrood?Quote:
Originally Posted by He's here!
Yip. The Scottish parliament is now divided on constitutional lines. When the SNP do eventually lose power, it will be to a Labour, Tory, Lib Dem coalition.Quote:
Originally Posted by HarpOnHibee
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The other scenario would be if we ever did get independenceQuote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
I think Labour could win handsomely after the 1st term
I think we will be like Northern Ireland with loads of parties some for independence and some rejoin.Quote:
Originally Posted by Just Alf
We need to be truthful and admit there will be a huge cut in our finances after independence due to losing barnett funding. We'll need to make big cuts. We'll also need a large amount of austerity to get in eu.
Things will be financially difficult for a decade much like brexit. We'll lose a lot of funding, try to get a trade deal with the uk and not be in the EU
There will be calls to rejoin just like brexit. What we need to put forward is we have the opportunity to make things better post the initial pain
With all this dirty oil money coming in, maybe we won’t need cuts? Especially if we take a share more like what the Norwegians take.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
That ship has sailed. Contracts signed and we won't get a boon from the renewables as we get pennies in the pound for that too unfortunately. We will eventually rejoin EU and flourish. There will definitely be austerity first and the media will be in full drive for rejoin. I think we need prepared for that as the job isn't over post independence dayQuote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
All the renewable licenses haven’t been sold yet? I expect next GERS figures will show Scotlands deficit to be in better territory.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
There's obviously future licences to be sold but the last big sale we are getting an estimated £50 million profit per year and the energy companies £3.5 billion. It will take a large departure for us to do a Norway.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Hopefully Wales are successful setting up there energy company with common weal and it'll grow confidence in that approach. Because the next two big tranches will be sold before we get independence
You make it sound as if Scotland doesn't have any income other than the Barnet Formula!Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
Where do you think Westminster gets all the money to generously bestow on Scotland?
Do you think these mercenary ******** wouldn't have got shot of us at the last referendum if we were costing them money?
Too wee, too poor by bahooky!
You may not like it but its a fact. We get more than we bring in. London subsidises most of the UK. Look at the GERS figures. It's not a compliment to the union that Scotland is poorer but it simply is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack
We aren't too poor we would still be a wealthy nation, our gdp would be less than England but with the chance to join EU I'm sure we'd grow faster
We don't actually know what we raise as there has been no proper analysis done on this in decades.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
GERS is certainly not an accurate reflection of Scotland's finances, there's way too many assumptions, suppositions and guesswork in there for it to be worth anything.
That is not fact and has been proven many times to be untrue. I'm surprised you bring Gers up in a good light on this site.[emoji16]Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
Sent from my SM-G975U1 using Tapatalk
Some say GERS overplays it but most decent analysis says there still is a gap where we get more. That is before we get to barnett giving us more than our population share. I don't think there is a sensible analyst that doesn't say there will be a funding gap post independence
Is GERS calculated before or after government ministers have troosered their cut or given their pals a slice of the cake?
Good luck getting a reputable accountant to sign them off as a true and fair view of Scotlands financial position.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
The replies show me that when we're independent and at a deficit, it's going to be an open goal for rejoin. If we're not truthful now then yes voters are going to say we were lied to that there won't need to be cuts. We will have to take an equal share of the massive debt. Also if we want to join the EU we will have to make cuts from our current deficit of 7% down to 3% post joining
Derek Mackay conceded that GERS is independent and a reflection of now. His argument is its not a reflection of where we could be so he's going to produce a rival similar to the UKs growth commission. I think that's fair its a decent snapshot of now but not of where we can be
You're right. Let's not even bother.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
Scotland able to spend more on public services after deal with UK Treasury | Scotland | The GuardianQuote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
Or more correctly add to the Scottish debt.Quote:
Originally Posted by He's here!
The agreement will allow ministers in Edinburgh to double their annual borrowing to protect day-to-day spending to £600m
We don’t know that our deficit is 7%?Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
We have absolutely no idea as Gers are a nonsense. The last time I bothered to look through them I noticed 17 or 18 instances of assumed figures being used and the spend on defence was twice that of the UK,.amongst other stuff. I guess the Scottish income tax system has made the data for that more robust but they still have little idea on the country of origin for indirect taxation and I'm not sure it even takes account of UK borrowing?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
The argument is always that they are the SG figures but it's based on incredibly poor information provided by HM Treasury. There needs to be proper independent fiscal reporting created so we can see the actual position rather than this politically motivated report that Ian Lang had created to weaken the case for Scottish self determination.
You're absolutely right.Quote:
Originally Posted by degenerated
Just look at all these former British Empire countries that are now floundering. Not.
We legally have to balance our books every year we don't have a definitely. This is a mythical part of English debtQuote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Sent from my SM-G975U1 using Tapatalk
People argue we can't borrow ourselves, then complain that we can borrow?Quote:
Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns
The amount that the Scottish Government are being allowed to borrow is but a drop in the ocean of what is required for the Scottish Budget.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
Gers might not be spot on but the debate is usually around how much we are subsidised. I don't think any even pro independence economist thinks Scotland doesn't get more than we put it, especially thanks to barnett being calculated wrong for us. Scotland gets 30% more public spending than England thanks to Barnett being miscalculated
1%Quote:
Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns
Being able to borrow is good but being able to spend it on what we need it to be spent on is a bigger issue, no?Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
It is but it should free up money to spend as we wish. Almost 40% of our gdp comes from income tax so we get a good whack, although we should have everythingQuote:
Originally Posted by degenerated
https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/...ong-yet-again/
GERS is a wild guess.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
We can only really spend it on capital projects, it can only be spent on resource if there is a fall in income tax receipts if I remember correctly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
I think a wild guess is being kind. I'd say closer to a politically motivated deliberate attempt to mislead.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Richard Murphy is called a quack on here when he criticises the snp and by more regularly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
A piece about that Murphy article you linked, where a number of prefesors ask did he even read GERS. Yes they are estimates but have a lot of data behind them, hence snp don't argue against them. Well worth a read for anyone thinking GERS is just a guess
https://chokkablog.blogspot.com/2017...enier.html?m=1
In the comments of murphys article someone says why would the snp chose the methodology and sign off the independent auditors, he replies because snp don't want independence. No bother Richard
https://twitter.com/staylorish/statu...145?lang=en-GB
I imagine GERS will turn more favourable over next few years which may suit the SNP.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I asked Professor Ronald MacDonald for his thoughts on the subject. Professor MacDonald is Research Professor in Macroeconomics and International Finance at the Adam Smith Business School; he has acted as an advisor on currency and exchange rate issues to the European Commission, IMF, World Bank, European Central Bank and a number of other central banks. He was previously Bonar Macfie Chair of Economics and Adam Smith Chair of Political Economy at the University of Glasgow and Professor of International Finance at the University of Strathclyde. I think we can fairly say that Professor MacDonald knows his stuff .Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack
He offered the following comment:
"It is important to note that that GERS is a national Statistics publication and assessed by the independent UK Statistics Authority. The statistics are produced by civil servants, and not by a partisan group, and are best practice in the sense that they meet the Code of Practice for Official Statistics, a code that is consistent with the European Statistics Code of Practice.
As in practically any statistical exercise the GERS statistics depend on estimates and there is nothing unusual about that. In that regard it is noteworthy that the statistics produced and reported in GERS come with standard confidence intervals indicating the uncertainty with which the central estimates are held. An examination of these confidence bounds demonstrates that the generally accepted position on Scotland’s fiscal and trade positions are unchanged. This is why mainstream economists, statisticians and commentators will continue to use these statistics in their work."
Professor Ronald MacDonald
I also asked Professor Angus Armstrong for his response. Angus is Director of Macroeconomics at the National Institute of Economic and Social Research (NIESR) and was previously Head of Macroeconomic Analysis at HM Treasury. It would be fair to say he too knows this subject better than most.
He offered me the following reply
“All economic statistics involve sampling and estimates. But when the UK Statistics Authority designate figures as ‘National Statistics’ that’s hugely significant. This is a kite-mark showing they meet international statistical standards. Anybody who says these figures are “easily rigged” or “nonsense data” frankly doesn’t deserve to be taken seriously. The people who work to create these statistics are honest, hard-working and dedicated public servants who aren’t allowed to answer back to defend themselves. Anyone who questions our national statisticians’ honesty and integrity should take a hard look at themselves.”
Professor Angus Armstrong
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_McDonaldQuote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
Neither of these quotes address the points raised by Richard Murphy. It's the social media equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
I don’t pay much heed to them either way. They don’t tell you anything about an independent Scotland unless you think we would make all the same choices and if that were the case then what would be the point?Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote:
Originally Posted by grunt
they do address some of the comments on here about their accuracy and any political motivation behind the people who work to generate the GERS
They do he's saying they are a guess when there is lots of analysis that creates the central figure. The rest of the article goes through his claims one by one. He's generally thought of as a nutter. He said last summer to stop inflation boe should cut inflation rate and start quantative easing. If that doesn't tell you everythingQuote:
Originally Posted by grunt
It doesn't no. It gives us an idea of immediately post but yes things will change after that however we want. I think Derek Mackay said similar, he agreed GERS was a good interpretation of now but wanted to produce an idea of what after independenceQuote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Clown.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
These people say GERS are stats not accounts. So they're not giving a true and fair view in an accounting sense. Meanwhile comments are about Scotlands bottom line is running up a debts to/with rUK.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
Should have asked an Accountant instead of statisticians if we want a true and fair view of Scotlands financial position.
ClutchingQuote:
Originally Posted by Jack
Would you be happy is a statistician did Hibs accounts?Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
I'm not sure the shareholders would.
Accountants did the accounts. When an eminent macroeconomic says "Anybody who says these figures are “easily rigged” or “nonsense data” frankly doesn’t deserve to be taken seriously." I trust that more than Joe bloggs saying these figures are riggedQuote:
Originally Posted by Jack
No they didn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
Accountants did hibs accounts I'm sure but I'm not sure the relevance, why would statisticians do them. GERS isn't accounts. Are you saying the independent team that compiled gers don't know what they are doing. Or disagreeing with the professor when he says "Anybody who says these figures are “easily rigged” or “nonsense data” frankly doesn’t deserve to be taken seriously."Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack
It's not that the figures are rigged. it's just that they are rough estimates generated from a methodology report that relies on an arguably outdated model.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
And it's worth paying even less attention to Ronald MacDonald of better together and Kevin Hague's ultra unionist group these islands.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
He came out with some absolute nonsense about an independent currency costing £300 billion and wiping 30% off pensions when the SNP put forward a proposal for Scottish currency.
These claims were in complete contradiction to previous claims he made when the Scottish government plan was to keep sterling. Attachment 27095
He doesn't give his opinion in the piece he literally just just says they were compiled by independent statisticians. Snp approved them and approve the GERS report when it comes out. Saying its rigged or a guess is all very trump snpanonQuote:
Originally Posted by degenerated
CoolQuote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
The flaws with GERS have been well documented over the years. The information in it is often simply wrong and misleading, so who would really want to draw any firm conclusions from that?Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
If it was biased against Scotland financially there is not a chance snp wouldn't take it to court and fight it. Why wouldn't they.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rumble de Thump
But they release it and they accept it as a fair representation. If independence supporters think it biased why don't they attack snp for releasing it as is
Scotland's Future, the Scottish Government publication that preceeded the referendum stated:
The starting point for this analysis is the National Statistics publication, Government Expenditure and Revenue Scotland (GERS). GERS is the authoritative publication on Scotland's public finances.
https://www.gov.scot/publications/sc...uture/pages/6/
Was the Scottish Government mistaken?
I'm not sure about independence supporters (everyone should be able to acknowledge its clear flaws), but the whole point of GERS was never to provide a fair and accurate representation of Scotland's finances. It was created by the Tories as a means of trying to dissuade people in Scotland from even wanting a devolved parliament let alone an independent Scotland. That was its purpose. That's why it exists. It's great to ask questions and be inquisitive, though. We just need to ackowledge the reality of the situation as a starting point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
The report isn't unlawful, just mistakenly misunderstood as being unquestionably accurate by some people, when the report isn't even based on any definitive real world figures but economic outcome forecasts. Just because the Scottish Government uses it, doesn't necessarily mean that they accept it as a fair representation. They accept it as the only representation available.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
GERS is literally the authoritative publication on Scotland's public finances.Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
They use it as verbatim when they want
East Dunbartonshire and SNP Spokesperson for Pensions, Ms Callaghan mp said
I must also stress that an independent Scotland can completely afford to pay state pensions. Latest figures (GERS: 2020-21) show that even during the pandemic, without borrowing a single penny, Scottish tax revenue covered all devolved day to day spending (e.g., on the NHS and schools) as well as all spending in Scotland on the state pension and Universal Credit
Even I believe the historic spend stuff. It's when it starts forecasting and then there's the bit the Scottish Government has no control over it becomes a nonsense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
It's the Scottish Government that produces it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack
It's the best that can be made from garbage data, that's the point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
The problem the SNP have is that they were happy to use these flawed statistics when it suited them.
Are you saying the numbers in Scotland's Future were flawed?Quote:
Originally Posted by degenerated
Says who?Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
I take it you mean cut the interest rate - I've seen many economists who criticise the BoE approach to controlling inflation. Is he an outlier?
I wouldn't describe anyone as a nutter. But I do know that Richard Murphy isn't an economist.Quote:
Originally Posted by grunt
Is there a better alternative?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rumble de Thump
Most think he's ridiculous. They should probably cut rates now that interest is falling and going to continue. He said last year when they were rising they should cut it and follow that with quantitative easing, something that helped create the rise. To be fair thankfully everyone said he was ridiculous, but he ignores his mad shouts doesn't acknowledge he has been proven wrong and just pumps out another 100 blogs.Quote:
Originally Posted by grunt
Even when talking about gers he says the snp produce it because they don't want independence and it helps show that clown
The bank of England don't seem to think that quantitative easing necessarily caused inflation, are they nutters too?Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/spee...ocial-research
This isn't the bank of England and it doesn't say QE didn't contribute at all. I said helped increase interest rates. Of course I don't think it caused it I've said previously brexit is probably due 10% alone. Fuel and food the majority.Quote:
Originally Posted by degenerated
BOE definitely didn't think QE would help last summer and definitely didn't think cutting interest rates in July last year when murphy suggested it, hence it increased them a large amount.
I don't think they should have risen today but that's a different story
This is old news about Murphy. Last year when he ripped apart SNPs independence paper, everyone said he's best ignored and I agreed
Richard Murphy: SNP currency plans for independence are 'so wrong' I'd switch to No
https://archive.ph/gdSVd
It quite literally is is the deputy governor, monetary policy for the bank of England?Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
One person doing a speech isn't the BOE as an entity, but that's not the main point. The fact the boe literally did the opposite of what Murphy suggested isQuote:
Originally Posted by degenerated
Who does? Provide some evidence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
Edit: Don't bother. I'm not interested.