|
|
Post by happyjack on Jan 12, 2023 13:04:15 GMT
Oh dear, I seem to have hit a raw nerve. Back at your nit pickery I see. So, I said "an estimate" instead of "estimation", big deal! ("an estimate" was not in quotation marks, sort of gives the game away) Grow up man! For someone who tries to portray himself as neutral on the constitutional question, but then goes on to show that he is, with every utterance, a raving unionist, you have no right to take the moral high ground. The 'bollocks' reference was in response to your response to JD that what he was saying was "drivel" You set too much stock by the Fraser of Allander folk. There are others, Richard Murphy for example, who take the view that GERS is not what it is made out to be. archive2021.parliament.scot/S5_EconomyJobsFairWork/Inquiries/EDI-003-Professor_Richard_Murphy.pdfThe figures shown in GERS are not indicative of where, economically, an Independent Scotland would be on independence. I mentioned Murphy in a previous spat with you. If I remember rightly you didn't read any of the linked to articles. And you have the temerity to rant and rave at others for not reading stuff that you post One thing, although I do not put my faith in GERS, I have never said that it is a UK Government exercise. What I say is that the reserved matters part of GERS is down to work carried out by UK civil servants, statisticians etc. They work for the State and as such are part of the propaganda machine that is the UK establishment. And, if you scoff at the 'propaganda' suggestion, you are even further distanced from reality than I thought. As for twisting the truth, you are up there with the best. No, you didn’t hit a raw nerve. Don’t flatter yourself. I have long since passed the point where I assume that there is any credibility in anything that you post - or where anything you say might make me question myself. My over-riding feeling when reading your post was pity. I agree that “the estimate” or “estimation” point in itself would be nit-picking, and if that was the extent of my point then I would not have even considered mentioning it. But when you wrongly say that it is my description, and describe what I posted as “ bollocks” because you didn’t even pick up that almost everything in my “ bollocks” post was Fraser of Allander Institute’s words and not mine (how embarrassing for you) then it is reasonable for me to include a reference to the “estimation” misquote when I wrap all of that stuff together to draw attention, through this little example, to the quality of your reading and understanding skills. And I didn’t do that to embarrass you (that would have been unnecessarily unkind) but to hopefully encourage other readers of anything that you post to reflect upon the reading, processing and understanding skills of the man behind the posts and therefore the credibility of his thinking and his comments. That, I think, is a reasonable thing for me to do. And no, your “bollocks” response was not in response to me reflecting the word “drivel” back at Jaydee as you claim above. How is “the operative word in all the bollocks you came up with is “attempt” even remotely consistent with you merely doing that, particularly as the word “attempt” that you refer to appears in a different section of my post when I was talking about a different matter? This is an attempt at shape-shifting in response to being caught out about something that you said in much the same way that we saw Bojo behave on partygate. Talking about shape-shifting of Bojo standards, all that you say in your penultimate paragraph falls into that category. On the old site, I used to feel that I was banging my head off of a brick wall trying to get you to recognise that GERS figures were produced at Holyrood, but despite giving you evidence issued by ScotGov itself, you still would not yield. Obviously, somebody in Indy Fanatics HQ has realised just how unsustainable and embarrassing that response was proving in the face of the facts, so the Indy Fanatics playbook has obviously been changed a little. But still you display a complete lack of understanding of the depth and detail that the ScotGov statisticians go into when producing the GERS figures. They work closely with their Westminster counterparts validating the veracity of every building block of the reserved matter figures before building them into GERS and before presenting them to ScotGov. Anyway, do you really think that any SNP ScotGov would sign off GERS if the sloppy picture you desperately try to paint was remotely true? You damn your credibility with all that you say on this matter. As for me setting too much stock on what Fraser of Allander Institute says, I don’t. What they say is absolutely typical of the body of credible and serious commentators who all say very much the same thing about GERS, including, effectively, SNP ScotGov itself. Richard Murphy is the outlier here, and the only person that Indy fanatics appear to have to go to to desperately counter the heavy weight of expert opinion lined up against them and their denial of GERS. And just how credible is Richard Murphy anyway. Well, before suddenly bursting onto the GERS scene, he was an advisor to Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell until they booted him out. McDonnell explained that they binned Murphy because they had no confidence in him, adding that he would be a good guy to go to though if you wanted to avoid paying some tax. Damning with faint praise indeed! That was in 2015, and then all went quiet until 2017 and GERS. How did he suddenly get involved in GERS? Well, here’s an explanation from back then ”Last August, the National published an article co-authored by Ian Dommett, former Marketing Director of Yes Scotland, headlined "11 lessons the Yes campaign must learn to win a second referendum". Tacitly accepting that the economic case for independence lies in tatters, it resorted to appealing for people to discredit the Scottish Government's own figures.
As the months passed, it seemed nobody with even the thinnest veneer of credibility would respond to this clarion call. Then, just a few weeks ago, a Professor Murphy entered the Scottish Independence debate. His contribution was to assert that the National Statistics published by our Scottish government are nonsense, that we practically know nothing about the Scottish economy and that what figures exist can't be trusted and are probably rigged by Westminster.
Having since discovered he hadn't understood the methodologies and assumptions used (and that these are chosen by the Scottish Government themselves) Murphy seems to have backed down, now saying he's merely suggesting that the accuracy of the data could be improved.
That he has implicitly retracted some of his more swivel-eyed claims is a good thing. That the GERS-denying wing of the pro-independence movement will ensure his initial wildly inaccurate and ill-informed assertions will echo on social media for years to come is as predictable as it is depressing.”......Wow! How prescient was that prediction btw !!! So, just how impressive is the oft quoted Indy fanatics’ go to guru? Here’s a couple of clues, the first focussing on Margaret Cuthbert’s condemnation of Murphy (Just think about this...Margaret Cuthbert for heaven’s sake!) www.scotsman.com/news/politics/economists-set-clash-holyrood-over-crap-gers-figures-1439462m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ni5dTPBgLKEThat’s a clue why I didn’t get back to you then and why I will never treat anything that Murphy has to say on GERS seriously. Others would be advised to do the same. Oh, and as for your quip about me having no right to take the high moral ground, when it comes to dealing with you I absolutely have. |
|
|
|
Post by morayloon on Jan 12, 2023 17:18:55 GMT
No you didn’t hit a raw nerve. Don’t flatter yourself. I have long since passed the point where I assume that there is any credibility in anything that you post - or where anything you say might make me question myself. My over-riding feeling when reading your post was pity. I agree that “the estimate” or “estimation” point in itself would be nit-picking, and if that was the extent of my point then I would not have even considered mentioning it. But when you wrongly say that it is my description, and describe what I posted as “ bollocks” because you didn’t even pick up that almost everything in my “ bollocks” post was Fraser of Allander Institute’s words and not mine (how embarrassing for you) then it is reasonable for me to include a reference to the “estimation” misquote when I wrap all of that stuff together to draw attention, in that little example, to the quality of your reading and understanding skills. And I didn’t do that to embarrass you (that would have been unnecessarily unkind) but to hopefully encourage other readers of anything that you post to reflect upon the reading, processing and understanding skills of the man behind the posts and therefore the credibility of his thinking and his comments. That, I think, is a reasonable thing for me to do. And no, your “bollocks” response was not in response to me reflecting the word “drivel” back at Jaydee as you claim above. How is “the operative word in all the bollocks you came up with is “attempt” even remotely consistent with you merely doing that, particularly as the word “attempt” that you refer to appears in a different section of my post when I was talking about a different matter? This is an attempt at shape-shifting in response to being caught out every bit as transparent as that which we saw from Bojo on partygate. Talking about shape-shifting of Bojo standards, all that you say in your penultimate paragraph falls into that category. On the old site, I used to feel that I was banging my head off of a brick wall trying to get you to recognise that GERS figures were produced at Holyrood, but despite giving you evidence issued by ScotGov itself, you still would not yield. Obviously, somebody in Indy fanatics HQ has realised just how unsustainable that response was proving in the face of the facts, so the Indy Fanatics playbook has obviously been changed a little. But still you display a complete lack of understanding of the depth and detail that the ScotGov statisticians go into when producing the GERS figures. They work closely with their Westminster counterparts validating the veracity of every building block of the reserved matter figures before building them into GERS and before presenting them to ScotGov. Anyway, do you really think that any SNP ScotGov would sign off GERS if the sloppy picture you desperately try to paint was remotely true? You damn your credibility with all that you say on this matter. As for me setting too much stock on what Fraser of Allander Institute says, I don’t. They are just absolutely typical of the body of credible and serious commentators who all say very much the same thing about GERS, including, effectively, SNP ScotGov itself. Richard Murphy is the outlier here, and the only person that Indy fanatics appear to have to go to to desperately counter the heavy weight of expert opinion on GERS. And just how credible is Richard Murphy anyway. Well, before suddenly bursting onto the GERS scene, he was an advisor to Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell until they booted him out. McDonnell explained that they binned Murphy because they had no confidence in him, adding that he would be a good guy to go to though if you wanted to avoid paying some tax. Damning with faint praise indeed! That was in 2015, and then all went quiet until 2017 and GERS. How did he suddenly get involved in GERS? Well, here’s an explanation from that time (2017) ”Last August, the National published an article co-authored by Ian Dommett, former Marketing Director of Yes Scotland, headlined "11 lessons the Yes campaign must learn to win a second referendum". Tacitly accepting that the economic case for independence lies in tatters, it resorted to appealing for people to discredit the Scottish Government's own figures.
As the months passed, it seemed nobody with even the thinnest veneer of credibility would respond to this clarion call. Then, just a few weeks ago, a Professor Murphy entered the Scottish Independence debate. His contribution was to assert that the National Statistics published by our Scottish government are nonsense, that we practically know nothing about the Scottish economy and that what figures exist can't be trusted and are probably rigged by Westminster.
Having since discovered he hadn't understood the methodologies and assumptions used (and that these are chosen by the Scottish Government themselves) Murphy seems to have backed down, now saying he's merely suggesting that the accuracy of the data could be improved.
That he has implicitly retracted some of his more swivel-eyed claims is a good thing. That the GERS-denying wing of the pro-independence movement will ensure his initial wildly inaccurate and ill-informed assertions will echo on social media for years to come is as predictable as it is depressing.”......Wow! How prescient was that prediction btw !!! So, just how impressive is the oft quoted Indy fanatics’ go to guru? Here’s a couple of clues, the first focussing on Margaret Cuthbert’s condemnation of Murphy (Margaret Cuthbert for heaven’s sake!) www.scotsman.com/news/politics/economists-set-clash-holyrood-over-crap-gers-figures-1439462m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ni5dTPBgLKEThat’s a clue why I didn’t get back to you then and why I will never treat anything that Murphy has to say on GERS seriously. Others would be advised to do the same. Oh, and as for your quip about me having no right to take the high moral ground, when it comes to dealing with you I absolutely have. I couldn't be arsed reading the nit-picking, pompous, self aggrandising crap most of your post comprises. Richard Murphy is a Nationalist. That doesn't make his views wrong. That quote is rather biased and I wonder who said it - you do not provide a link! I have read the Ian Drommett article and it doesn't say a lot about GERS. You see, I actually located and read the article your source referred to. You obviously do not read any of Murphy's articles that I link to. Perhaps you should give up trawling the net, looking for bits & pieces that rubbish his take on GERS and instead sit down and read what he has to say. As for the YouTube clip, I have to point out that the person who posted it is hardly an unbiased source!!! (Was he the same source for your quoted passage?). Also, the clip is 4 years old. Murphy has not changed his views dramatically. Indeed his blog, relating to GERS 22, which links to his article in the National, is headlined " GERS is still CRAp". www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2022/08/24/gers-is-still-crap/ From 2021 " Why GERS is wrong – yet again" www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2021/08/18/why-gers-is-wrong-yet-again/ From 2020 " Government Expenditure and Revenue Scotland is the usual fabrication, whilst hinting at how badly treated Scotland has been" and 2019 " Whatever GERS reports today it’s important to remember it’s still CRAp – or a Completely Rubbish Approximation to the truth". Doesn't sound like he's altered his views. Instead of trying to score points, you should actually try and read, I know it's difficult for you but try. Get the story from the horse's mouth rather than from a partial looker on. A c3minute clip has been lifted from proceedings and is expected to be taken as proof that Murphy is not to be trusted on GERS. I would like to see the full film of the meeting, especially Murphy's responses to questions put to him by members of the committee. Your knee jerk reaction says a lot about you! |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Jan 12, 2023 18:43:04 GMT
Seems the NHS is crap whoever is running it..  |
|
|
|
Post by happyjack on Jan 12, 2023 18:43:08 GMT
DUPLICATE POST
|
|
|
|
Post by happyjack on Jan 12, 2023 18:43:34 GMT
Morayloon, So you are playing the same old “can’t be arsed” card that that you always fall back on when you can’t wriggle out of an argument. I had already called you out on your shape-shifting tendencies so I fully expected you to do that here for that very reason and you haven’t let me down. I have to ask, though, How did you of know what my post comprised if you didn’t read it and how did you know that the Richard Murphy section was different without reading it all over? Whether Richard Murphy is a Nationalist or not shouldn’t matter. If he holds himself up as a professional and an expert then his personal beliefs should not come into it. What he really is is a figure of ridicule for most other professional commentators and contributors to the GERS discussions, but he is probably the only one that the Indy fanatics can point to in support of their GERS denying strategy so you have to try to defend him, I guess. Can I ask where you got the links from that you posted? I presume that either you or someone you know or know of had to go online and find them. Why is it ok for you to do that but you object to me doing so? Surely you understand that double standards is not a good look. I know Murphy’s views have not changed much over the last 5 years or so. I don’t understand why you think that is a virtue though. He was held in contempt by almost all of the professional commentators and contributors to the GERS process and he is still held in contempt by them for holding the same views. Some of them will be nationalists, some will be opposed to independence, and some won’t have a particular view either way. But the point is that they are all professional and able to separate their personal views from their professional role. Margaret Cuthbert certainly seemed capable of doing that when she described Murphy’s views as “appalling “ and “ verging on ignorant”. So, given that Murphy’s views are so widely dismissed by almost every other “expert”, including those with much more expertise and much more direct experience of compiling the GERS figures, why is it that you and the Indy fanatics (and only the Indy fanatics) out there all seem to insist that Murphy is correct and the others are all wrong? BTW - I notice that you reserved whatever puny response you could muster for the ScotGov Committee clip and the reference to the article in the National. Why did you choose not to comment on the article about Margaret Cuthbert’s criticisms of Richard Murphy? |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Jan 12, 2023 18:50:50 GMT
Given that Murphy is a bit of a joke figure south of the border who is kept at arms length by all the major political parties I'm surprised that the Scots are embracing him and his rather odd views. I'm sure that even the Nationalists have some real economists as supporters and dont have to rely on a retired accountant from North London.
|
|
|
|
Post by happyjack on Jan 12, 2023 18:57:21 GMT
The point is that neither the Scots nor any of the experts are embracing him, Pacifico , or the SNP ScotGov either, for that matter - only the Indy extremists. And they are doing so because they have no other supposedly informed source to point to other than Murphy. So, as they refuse to accept the inconvenient truth of the GERS figures, they need him still on his feet and swinging punches to give their GERS denying strategy even a paper-thin veneer of credibility.
PS - it will be interesting to see if ScotGov and their constituent parties hold this line when/ if another Indyref comes along or if they will decide to deny the inconvenient truth of the GERS figures for electoral purposes..
|
|
|
|
Post by morayloon on Jan 13, 2023 0:02:09 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by morayloon on Jan 13, 2023 0:57:14 GMT
Morayloon, So you are playing the same old “can’t be arsed” card that that you always fall back on when you can’t wriggle out of an argument. I had already called you out on your shape-shifting tendencies so I fully expected you to do that here for that very reason and you haven’t let me down. I have to ask, though, How did you of know what my post comprised if you didn’t read it and how did you know that the Richard Murphy section was different without reading it all over? Whether Richard Murphy is a Nationalist or not shouldn’t matter. If he holds himself up as a professional and an expert then his personal beliefs should not come into it. What he really is is a figure of ridicule for most other professional commentators and contributors to the GERS discussions, but he is probably the only one that the Indy fanatics can point to in support of their GERS denying strategy so you have to try to defend him, I guess. Can I ask where you got the links from that you posted? I presume that either you or someone you know or know of had to go online and find them. Why is it ok for you to do that but you object to me doing so? Surely you understand that double standards is not a good look. I know Murphy’s views have not changed much over the last 5 years or so. I don’t understand why you think that is a virtue though. He was held in contempt by almost all of the professional commentators and contributors to the GERS process and he is still held in contempt by them for holding the same views. Some of them will be nationalists, some will be opposed to independence, and some won’t have a particular view either way. But the point is that they are all professional and able to separate their personal views from their professional role. Margaret Cuthbert certainly seemed capable of doing that when she described Murphy’s views as “appalling “ and “ verging on ignorant”. So, given that Murphy’s views are so widely dismissed by almost every other “expert”, including those with much more expertise and much more direct experience of compiling the GERS figures, why is it that you and the Indy fanatics (and only the Indy fanatics) out there all seem to insist that Murphy is correct and the others are all wrong? BTW - I notice that you reserved whatever puny response you could muster for the ScotGov Committee clip and the reference to the article in the National. Why did you choose not to comment on the article about Margaret Cuthbert’s criticisms of Richard Murphy? 1. I am not getting dragged into your little nit-picking world 2. I use google to find info. 3. I don't know any of the people involved in GERS so I can't comment on their views but perhaps you could enlighten me! 4. I provide a link, below, to the full video of the committee meeting from which Hague concocted his clip. You will see, if you bother watching it, that no one disagrees with Murphy's premise that data collection and statistics are unreliable. Indeed all of the guests made similar statements. It was mentioned that UK data collection has to improve to better represent the Scottish situation. 5. On the FoAI, Murphy actually agreed that their position is reasonable but made the point that the data provided to the statisticians, being so unreliable, means that the FoAI view is not a certainty. He also points out that the same argument applies to his explanation. 6. Margaret Cuthbert, in the Scotsman article, seemed to be more offended by Murphy's choice of words than anything he had to say. Murphy agrees that GERS has improved over the years but it is not the finished product claimed by you. In the video, Cuthbert repeats her revulsion at the headline grabbing statement used by Murphy. 7. In your first few posts on the old forum you did come across as a fence sitter. Someone who had voted NO in 2014 but was considering his options. That facade came crumbling down when you posted pro-Union guff as if it was gospel (GERS anyone) while refusing to acknowledge positive YES arguments. You were a Unionist, you are still a Unionist and, I guess, you will always be a Unionist. |
|
|
|
Post by borchester on Jan 13, 2023 2:28:04 GMT
Given that Murphy is a bit of a joke figure south of the border who is kept at arms length by all the major political parties I'm surprised that the Scots are embracing him and his rather odd views. I'm sure that even the Nationalists have some real economists as supporters and dont have to rely on a retired accountant from North London. What is wrong with North London? |
|
|
|
Post by happyjack on Jan 13, 2023 2:48:36 GMT
Morayloon,
Ok, if you don’t want to get involved in nit- picking, let’s boil it down to the crux of the matter ie. the Indy Fanatics amongst us choose to promote the outlier views of Richard Murphy that the GERS figures are crap ( a view described by Margaret Cuthbert, for example, as “verging on ignorant”) rather than accept the widely held view of the vast majority of commentators, contributors, and SNP ScotGov itself that the GERS figures are reliable, certainly sufficiently so to fulfill their intended purpose. They do this, not because they believe it but because it is a view that better fits their agenda ie. it helps them to further the cause of Scottish Independence, a goal that they will pretty much say or do anything to achieve, including misleading the Scottish people about the scale of the financial challenge that an Indy Scotland would face.
|
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Jan 13, 2023 8:25:40 GMT
Morayloon, Ok, if you don’t want to get involved in nit- picking, let’s boil it down to the crux of the matter ie. the Indy Fanatics amongst us choose to promote the outlier views of Richard Murphy that the GERS figures are crap ( a view described by Margaret Cuthbert, for example, as “verging on ignorant”) rather than accept the widely held view of the vast majority of commentators, contributors, and SNP ScotGov itself that the GERS figures are reliable, certainly sufficiently so to fulfill their intended purpose. They do this, not because they believe it but because it is a view that better fits their agenda ie. it helps them to further the cause of Scottish Independence, a goal that they will pretty much say or do anything to achieve, including misleading the Scottish people about the scale of the financial challenge that an Indy Scotland would face. Dont have the time to deal with all your latest british nationalist drivel , but i will get back to you .
Just want to quickly pick up on your use of Margaret Cuthbert as somehow endorsing the GERS figures as credible by calling Richard murphys view vergin on ignorant .
Heres what the cuthberts have said on GERS...
. JIM AND MARGARET CUTHBERT
Jim Cuthbert was Chief Statistician at the UK government’s Scottish Office. He has an MA in mathematics and economics, an MSc in mathematics and statistics, and a PhD in probability theory. He lectured in statistics at Glasgow University, and worked for the cash limits division of the UK Treasury.
His wife Margaret has a degree in Economics and Statistics, and worked as an economist for ICI before lecturing in econometrics at Glasgow University.
The Cuthberts have spent many years pointing out the methodological flaws in GERS, some of which were deliberately designed into the figures by a hostile UK government.
GERS are crap data , and everyone knows GERS are crap data. The Cuthberts have been pointing out for years much to unionists dimsay the fallacy and flaws of these crystal ball gazing figures , guesswork , missing data and flaws inherent in GERS , as well as the fact they are quite obviously politically motivated .
Unionists such as merryn somerset web backed this view up regarding GERS as fantasy guesswork for an independent scotland....
Everyone acknowledges and knows GERS is absolutely meaningless drivel for the finances of an independent scotland. Three cheers for happy jack hanging his coat on the shoogly peg of the GERS fantasy once again to keep scotland in his rotten out of date union.
|
|
|
|
Post by jaydee on Jan 13, 2023 9:04:38 GMT
Seems the NHS is crap whoever is running it.. The reason she went back to Ukraine through England is because she would have to wait twice as long there. Not to mention she would have not been registered. Nearly 40% of NHS hospital departments in England have average treatment waiting times above 18 weeks – with average waits at some well over 30 weeks, according to Observer analysis of NHS data. In England, the NHS Constitution sets out that patients should wait no more than 18 weeks from GP referral to treatment. The response time in bankrupt England for a ambulance to attend is 18 minutes. It is now 92 minutes. In many cases two days. A English NHS survey has concluded that two million adults wait between two and three weeks to see a doctor and half a million suffer a delay of more than a month ...As the wonderful English NHS is so wonderful it is now critical. Now if the Westminster wankers cannot see it is critical. How are they going to fix it. Did you not see QT last night. Or did you think they were talking about Scotland. But what the hell. |
|
|
|
Post by jaydee on Jan 13, 2023 10:23:25 GMT
It is pipe dreams like this that encourage those without the power of thought to believe the SNP nonsense. All your power is owned by the Spanish anyway, just concentrate on teaching your children the alphabet and fill in your pot holes. Once again I directed a post at the wrong person. So here it is again directed at you, It never amazes me just how stupid some Englishmen can get. And here we go again. I cannot find another way to describe it. So far you have been ranting total rubbish about Scotland. Mostly just hate filled bile such as retards, who interbreed and so on. And it is getting boring. Just making idiotic clueless statements, wrecking threads with stupidity and so on. How Scotland will fall to bits. . All of which the local drunk, village idiot or half wit would do basic a research before making gob go. Those include pot holes, ferry fuck ups, education NHS, Social housing and so on. You know what I am talking about. You start at the beginning then go to the end, producing not one bit of evidence apart from some zombie, sex offender, or out and out a little Englander Tory fascist as your source. Ranting what you do. Then start back at the beginning. So I am going to go though them one by one, every day. Asking you why you rant what you do when everything you do rant is many times worse in your sooper dooper England by more than a country mile. . Lets start with pot holes. I already asked you yesterday and still no reply. I will give you 24 hours to reply. Then each and every time this will be another copy and paste. As you rant that again. So below and today. I will start with the pothole disasters in England. It is a very simple question. You have already gave a link to your sooper dooper sources saying. £200 million to fix Scottish potholes. That is what you posted. Explain how it is worse in Scotland. And you still have not told me as someone who is so hate filled about Jocks. And you want them to go. Why do you have a problem with the SNP. You should be rooting for them, As Spock would say. It does not compute captain. This is the stupidity of some Englishmen. I totally fail to grasp. A copy and paste. It has not changed in the last week. Cost not even close to bankrupt England. Pot holes are not the responsibility of the SNP. They are responsibility of the local authority. and the 10 worst in the country are. See below. So once again England is 90 times worse. The average frequency of road surfacing is now once every 68 years in England, and the bill to fix the backlog of maintenance work on your local roads in England and Wales remains in excess of £10bn. take your time I will be back to read your wonderful conclusion 1.Surrey County Council - 6,73 2.Kent County Council - 3,194 3.Hertfordshire County Council - 3,124 4.Essex County Council - 2,989 5.Lancashire County Council - 2,703 6.Glasgow City Council - 2,486 7.Buckinghamshire County Council - 2,484 8.Hampshire County Council - 2,411 9Oxfordshire County Council - 2,345 10. Cheshire East Council - 2,306 www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/fixing-britains-potholes-would-cost-23824389 |
|
|
|
Post by happyjack on Jan 13, 2023 11:31:35 GMT
Morayloon, Ok, if you don’t want to get involved in nit- picking, let’s boil it down to the crux of the matter ie. the Indy Fanatics amongst us choose to promote the outlier views of Richard Murphy that the GERS figures are crap ( a view described by qMargaret Cuthbert, for example, as “verging on ignorant”) rather than accept the widely held view of the vast majority of commentators, contributors, and SNP ScotGov itself that the GERS figures are reliable, certainly sufficiently so to fulfill their intended purpose. They do this, not because they believe it but because it is a view that better fits their agenda ie. it helps them to further the cause of Scottish Independence, a goal that they will pretty much say or do anything to achieve, including misleading the Scottish people about the scale of the financial challenge that an Indy Scotland would face. Dont have the time to deal with all your latest british nationalist drivel , but i will get back to you .
Just want to quickly pick up on your use of Margaret Cuthbert as somehow endorsing the GERS figures as credible by calling Richard murphys view vergin on ignorant .
Heres what the cuthberts have said on GERS...
. JIM AND MARGARET CUTHBERT
Jim Cuthbert was Chief Statistician at the UK government’s Scottish Office. He has an MA in mathematics and economics, an MSc in mathematics and statistics, and a PhD in probability theory. He lectured in statistics at Glasgow University, and worked for the cash limits division of the UK Treasury.
His wife Margaret has a degree in Economics and Statistics, and worked as an economist for ICI before lecturing in econometrics at Glasgow University.
The Cuthberts have spent many years pointing out the methodological flaws in GERS, some of which were deliberately designed into the figures by a hostile UK government.
GERS are crap data , and everyone knows GERS are crap data. The Cuthberts have been pointing out for years much to unionists dimsay the fallacy and flaws of these crystal ball gazing figures , guesswork , missing data and flaws inherent in GERS , as well as the fact they are quite obviously politically motivated .
Unionists such as merryn somerset web backed this view up regarding GERS as fantasy guesswork for an independent scotland....
Everyone acknowledges and knows GERS is absolutely meaningless drivel for the finances of an independent scotland. Three cheers for happy jack hanging his coat on the shoogly peg of the GERS fantasy once again to keep scotland in his rotten out of date union.
1. You really don’t need to explain who the Cuthberts are, the high regard in which they are held across the political spectrum in Scotland, or their role in driving through serious improvements in the GERS figures. If you thought that I didn’t already know that, why do you think I have been highlighting that it was Margaret Cuthbert who said that Richard Murphy’s description of GERS was “verging on ingnorance”? 2. Of course there was a political motivation behind the introduction of GERS in the first instance. Politicians being politically motivated is hardly headline news. Political motivation is also why Indy Fanatics seek to deny the inconvenient truth of GERS as evidenced by the desperate efforts we are currently seeing on here from our little band of Indy Fanatics. 3. I agree that GERS doesn’t tell us anything about the choices that a future Indy Scottish government might make. Nobody, as far as I am aware, claims that it does. Nor should they because GERS is neither designed to do that nor does it seek to do that. All that GERS seeks to do is to tell us, at the end of each financial year, what Scotland’s net fiscal balance is and, at the end of 2021/22 it was circa -£23.7 billion ie 12.3% of GDP. This means that Scotland currently enjoys the benefit of receiving £23.7 billion worth of public sector benefits and facilities that it would not be able to provide for itself based upon current Scottish revenues. So it means that if a future Indy Scotland government wants to maintain our current public benefits and facilities standard of living then it is going to have to find £23.7 billion from somewhere each and every year. Either that or it reduces the level of public benefits and facilities by that amount each and every year. As FAI says, a stark choice indeed. 4. GERS is a reliable assessment of Scotland’s net fiscal balance. Everybody knows that, and SNP ScotGov acknowledges that every year when they sign off the GERS report and when they issue statements saying that. So everybody does not know that GERS is crap, not even SNP ScotGov. Only Indy fanatics argue that, and they only do so because they can’t acknowledge the truth for fear that it will damage the prospects for independence (which, of course, it would). So they deny the undeniable and mislead the Scottish people about the financial challenges of independence. The above, in a nutshell, is the reality. You can huff and puff as much as you like, but you won’t blow that house down. If you, or anybody else comes up with something credible that challenges any of that, then I will take it on board and try to respond (provided I read that post in the first place, of course, which is regularly not the case with yours, and those from other Indy fanatics posts, on here. Sorry, but life is too short!). |
|
