YeSNP spin debunked - the Truth about our finances at last !

[longshanks]

As Scots we must make our decision based on full knowledge of the FACTS; not on fanciful daydreams, half truths and misleading statements.

NOTE: Apparently the Presiding Officer (an SNP msp) banned the use of the word "misleading" in Holyrood yesterday after she demanded Ruth Davidson withdraw her claim that Salmond is misleading us over EU membership. You really couldn't make it up. (for confirmation read Alan Cochrane's report in today's Telegraph)

[jimcee]

NOTE: Apparently the Presiding Officer (an SNP msp) banned the use of the word "misleading" in Holyrood yesterday after she demanded Ruth Davidson withdraw her claim that Salmond is misleading us over EU membership. You really couldn't make it up. (for confirmation read Alan Cochrane's report in today's Telegraph)

The Presiding Officer has the responsibility of keeping the Chamber in order, and no doubt can rule on deflamatory references like ""Liar, Charlatan, Upstart, Weasel, Chancer, Poltroon, Rogue, Blackguard, Jumped up Expert", and personal references to the character of the members.
But to rule that the word "Misleading" should be banned from being uttered, is surely beyond the realm of understanding and is probably indicative of the onset of the "Nanny State".
If Misleading is banned, then shortly - Doubtful, Questionable, Unsubstantiated, will join the queue.
And how will debate be debated if it is impossible to challenge the veracity of others statements?.
Will the day come when a new member is presented with a dictionary of unacceptable words to be used in debate, and threatened with banishment if one should pass their lips?

[longshanks]

The Presiding Officer has the responsibility of keeping the Chamber in order, and no doubt can rule on deflamatory references like ""Liar, Charlatan, Upstart, Weasel, Chancer, Poltroon, Rogue, Blackguard, Jumped up Expert", and personal references to the character of the members.
But to rule that the word "Misleading" should be banned from being uttered, is surely beyond the realm of understanding and is probably indicative of the onset of the "Nanny State".
If Misleading is banned, then shortly - Doubtful, Questionable, Unsubstantiated, will join the queue.
And how will debate be debated if it is impossible to challenge the veracity of others statements?.
Will the day come when a new member is presented with a dictionary of unacceptable words to be used in debate, and threatened with banishment if one should pass their lips?

The issue arises because of a very strange passage of arms at Holyrood yesterday when Ruth Davidson, the Tory leader, was ordered by Tricia Marwick, the presiding officer, to withdraw a claim she had barely begun to make that Alex Salmond had "misled the Scottish public on EU legal advice".

Taken aback by the rebuke, Ms Davidson complied with the ruling and substituted the claim that the First Minister had been "unadjacent to the truth" in respect to that legal advice on the European Union – a correction that apparently satisfied the presiding officer.

Again speaking personally I should have thought that Mr Salmond didn't just mislead the public over legal advice on the EU but misled his entire cabinet and parliamentary party on the issue.

Some of you might remember that he told Andrew Neil, in a television interview, that he had sought advice from his law officers on Scottish entry to the EU. He then denied saying this but subsequently went to court, at a cost to the taxpayer of £20,000, to contest an Information Commissioner ruling that he should release that legal advice.

But then, adding to the confusion, Nicola Sturgeon, the Deputy First Minister, announced that the Scottish Government was dropping the blocking action because no legal advice existed anyway. If that wasn't misleading, it's difficult to know what is.

It was this to which the Tory leader referred yesterday saying, in effect, that if Mr Salmond could mislead on that bit of EU entry why should we believe him on any of it.

Ms Davidson protested that the word "mislead" had been given a clean bill of health last month and Labour's Neil Findlay, who has become a reasonably effective barrack-room lawyer, asked for a ruling from the presiding officer on why this word had become outlawed when it had been used "dozens of times".

She gave him a pretty dusty response, saying there were no hard and fast guidelines about what was permissible, adding that the only judgment that mattered on such occasions was hers and hers alone.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/1057 ... isled.html

[NickB]

.
As usual nothing has been debunked or revealed - in fact the very opposite as all the figures used in the rather dull table above come from GERS, which is an openly available and widely distributed Scottish government publication.

I'm afraid that all we have here is some widely available and non-disputed data that has been tortuously spun by our very own Seil spinmeister extraordinaire, Longshanks.

It is no secret that Scotland has been running a budget deficit in recent years. So has the UK. So have most developed economies.

What is more significant is the size of the Scottish deficit expressed as %age of GDP, compared to the same figure for the UK as a whole.



All this economic data is freely available in unspun format in the White Paper. Have you got your free copy yet?

[longshanks]

I'm afraid that all we have here is some widely available and non-disputed data that has been tortuously spun by our very own Seil spinmeister extraordinaire, Longshanks.

I'm trying to work out if you may be making a personal attack on me, or not, in contravention of forum rules I think. Perhaps we should maybe ask Herby to give a ruling ?

Beside that I cannot see that I have done any spinning whatsoever; if so please point it out so I am aware for the future.

As far as I can see I merely posted a table of official Government data which confirms we consistently spend far more than we earn by, in recent years, a considerable margin.

What is more significant is the size of the Scottish deficit expressed as %age of GDP, compared to the same figure for the UK as a whole.

In which case please post such a graph !

EDIT: PM me if you want me to explain the difference between a country's deficit and a country's debt.

[NickB]

.
Could you please be more careful when using the quote function and be sure to only use it to enclose words posted by the person you are quoting?
As for the spin - your post was entitled

YeSNP spin debunked - the Truth about our finances at last

When in fact this 'Truth' was available all along in the SNP's own White Paper.

So - no new truth, nothing debunked and no SNP spin. The spin was all yours.

And may I also suggest that you stop making frivolous accusations about forum rules being broken ? It is - once again - yourself that is treading on thin ice. I suggest you read the bit about 'back seat moderation' again.

[longshanks]

When in fact this 'Truth' was available all along in the SNP's own White Paper.

So - no new truth, nothing debunked and no SNP spin. The spin was all yours.

You what ?

I posted the figures in £ for our excess spending over income. Our deficit in numbers. This was not contained in the White Paper. If I'm wrong please show us all.

What was in the White Paper was a percentage of our debt against our GDP.

The SNP, as usual, provided no real numbers !

Our debt is not known for certain. What is it? What number did the SNP choose so as to come up with a percentage ?

Do you want me to explain the difference between deficit and debt ?

And may I also suggest that you stop making frivolous accusations about forum rules being broken ? It is - once again - yourself that is treading on thin ice. I suggest you read the bit about 'back seat moderation' again.

Understood.

Just to confirm: If I press the report post button I assume I'm clear of charges of "back seat moderation" ?

[NickB]

.

Let's look at figures since the SNP came to government in Scotland.

Since 2007-08, Scotland has run an average net fiscal deficit of £8.3 billion (5.9% of GDP). During the same period, the UK ran an average annual deficit of £111 billion, equivalent to 7.6% of GDP.

I must say I am at a loss to understand why you are so determined to convince your fellow Scots that they are incapable of running their own country. I thought you were going to promote a positive case for the Union, something you have so far singularly failed to do.

Just to confirm: If I press the report post button I assume I'm clear of charges of "back seat moderation" ?

There are no posts I can see since your return to the fray that would merit any action.

Frivolous use of the 'report post' button would not be looked on with favour by myself. I have better things to do than respond to imagined slights on your character.

I can't speak for Herby. Try pressing the button - perhaps he will take the time to respond.

[longshanks]

Frivolous use of the 'report post' button would not be looked on with favour by myself. I have better things to do than respond to imagined slights on your character.

You are welcome to try it with Herby - I can't speak for him.

Understood.

In view of your comment I obviously would prefer to have my "report post" (non frivolous) dealt with by Herby than by you; I'm sure you'll understand. Is there a way this can be arranged ?

[NickB]

In view of your comment I obviously would prefer to have my "report post" (non frivolous) dealt with by Herby than by you; I'm sure you'll understand. Is there a way this can be arranged ?

Yes, I can accommodate that.

If I see that you have reported a post I will simply ignore it from now on.

Herby can then choose whether he responds or not.

[longshanks]

Let's look at figures since the SNP came to government in Scotland.

Since 2007-08, Scotland has run an average net fiscal deficit of £8.3 billion

I can only assume you got that figure from some SNP spin doc.

Look at the reality in the table in the opening post. This was our ACTUAL fiscal deficit in each year of SNP rule as recorded by GERS:

07/08 - £10.8 billion
08/09 - £15.8 billion
09/10 - £19.9 billion
10/11 - £18.6 billion
11/12 - £18.2 billion

Its all there, the reality, in the table.

That the SNP manage to spin that to an average of -£8.3 billion is verging on criminal deception.

You don't get it do you. For political reasons the SNP never give us the real figures in their publicity but spin it with percentages etc so that we all think separation will be some kind of land of milk and honey....it won't. It'll be an economic disaster for us, our children and our grandchildren

I must say I am at a loss to understand why you are so determined to convince your fellow Scots that they are incapable of running their own country. I thought you were going to promote a positive case for the Union, something you have so far singularly failed to do.

I am not, and have not, tried to convince anyone of that. I merely expose to the full light of day our true position.

Of course we are capable of running our own country. How stupid to say otherwise.

And as for making a positive case for remaining part of the family of the UK....well, I have given fourteen excellent and unassailable reasons (so far).

[NickB]

Look at the reality in the table in the opening post. This was our ACTUAL fiscal deficit in each year of SNP rule as recorded by GERS:

07/08 - £10.8 billion
08/09 - £15.8 billion
09/10 - £19.9 billion
10/11 - £18.6 billion
11/12 - £18.2 billion

Its all there, the reality, in the table.

That the SNP manage to spin that to an average of -£8.3 billion is verging on criminal deception.

You are taking the deficit figures from the column that does not include any revenue from North Sea oil. The actual figures for the deficit once a geographical share of North Sea revenues is taken into account is given in the far right hand column, and I think you will find that the average deficit over the years mentioned is exactly what the SNP say it is.

07/08 - £3.7 billion
08/09 - £4.1 billion
09/10 - £14.0 billion
10/11 - £10.6 billion
11/12 - £7.6 billion

I make that an average deficit of £8 billion for those five years.

I am surprised that you are apparently unable to understand the table you yourself posted, but the alternative - that you are deliberately trying to mislead people - surely can't be true.

[longshanks]

Look at the reality in the table in the opening post. This was our ACTUAL fiscal deficit in each year of SNP rule as recorded by GERS:

07/08 - £10.8 billion
08/09 - £15.8 billion
09/10 - £19.9 billion
10/11 - £18.6 billion
11/12 - £18.2 billion

Its all there, the reality, in the table.

That the SNP manage to spin that to an average of -£8.3 billion is verging on criminal deception.

You are taking the deficit figures from the column that does not include any revenue from North Sea oil.

Yes I do.

Because that is the reality. That is what our ACTUAL structural deficit was over the last five years.

That is what we actually earned and spend in hard cash...not in "what might have been".

I deal in reality, not supposition, assertion and wish lists. We do not have a geographical share of north sea oil income. FACT.

Lets deal with reality and leave the SNP to get on with their obvious misleading tactics

DRIFT: Salmond totally blew his indy fantasy last night, under superb pressure from Naughtie. Did you see it ? It'll be all over the papers this weekend. ForArgyll have it; check there.

[NickB]

No-one is suggesting that an independent Scotland would not get the lion's share of North Sea oil revenues. No- one. Except apparently you.

You might as well say that there was no Scottish structural deficit because there was no separate Scottish economy. If you are going to use graphs and tables then please do us the favour of using them honestly.

Keep at it Longshanks . . . As far as this little corner of the web is concerned you are doing a sterling job for the YES campaign.

[longshanks]

No-one is suggesting that an independent Scotland would not get the lion's share of North Sea oil revenues. No- one. Except apparently you.

Have I ever suggested that ? Where ? Please do quote me !

I deal in facts and reality (not would've, should've, could've) and I merely present the facts of our massive structural deficit over the last five years as it was in reality, the real world not a world of "ah but, if we had......".

Something which the nationalists try to smooth over by misleading us all in shoving in geographical oil revenue which we don't and didn't have.

The simple truth is the SNP are totally scared to deal in facts and reality hence the absolute lack costings in the White Paper. They don't even have enough respect for us true born Scots to include words such as "if", "maybe", "perhaps", "possibly".

Keep at it Longshanks . . . As far as this little corner of the web is concerned you are doing a sterling job for the YES campaign.

That is, folks, a laughable attempt to encourage me to desist from revealing the truths and realities which the nationalists try to hide from us all and it has no basis..............the reality is I continually receive encouragement from my fellow islanders to continue to ensure that our community forum sees the non-nationalist side of the debate vigorously argued.

I reckon the few "don't knows" around these parts have now had their eyes opened to the realities of our deficit.

[PentlandPirate II]

It isn't so long ago that Alex Salmond said it wouldn't be possible to give facts on so many aspects of an independent Scotland because it would be the MP's of a newly elected and independent Scottish government who would vote to create the new laws, institutions, government projects, etc, etc. Then after U turn after U turn, he was forced to come up with something of substance which eventually materialised as the White Paper. So now he's changed his story to state what he could not previously give as fact, is now fact, even though it is still true that it will only be a government in the future that MIGHT make these things possible.

And what happens if there is a low turnout and the Yes win a majority of the vote, based on a small minority of the electorate? There could be months, perhaps years before the Scottish Government get round to putting in place Alex Salmond's promises.... if at all. The whole political climate might have changed by that time, with the possibility that the majority in the House were people who would prefer Scotland had not become independent. The Nationalists might not be able to steer the country in the direction they had promised would be the case.

Alex Salmond cannot state anything as fact. Not for nothing did he get a reputation a long time ago as a chancer. People with big smiley faces know that they can get away with telling the odd lie (too nice a chappie surely to tell a fib?). I used to think the same of Tony Blair, and it was too late before I saw him for what he really was. Alex Salmond is so hemmed in by fact that he has nothing to lose by trying to pass off more fibs.

The North Sea Oil thing is so yesterday. Revenues are falling. It's cheaper to get oil from other places than the North Sea. It's a diminishing asset that may become worthless long before it has run out, purely because it is more expensive to extract. The Yes campaigners are crazy to think they that North Sea Oil is their magic wand that will allow them to live happily ever after.

[NickB]

I reckon the few "don't knows" around these parts have now had their eyes opened to the realities of our deficit.

The problem is that you have not described any sort of 'reality', just your own bizarre interpretation of what is a very straightforward collection of figures.

What you are describing is the Scottish economic situation with no geographical share of North Sea oil.

Yet you say you accept that an independent Scotland would have a geographical share of North Sea Oil.

Therefore presenting figures which do not include this as an example of how unfit for independence the country is at best disingenuous and at worst - to quote Ruth Davidson at FMQs this week - 'unadjacent to the truth'

[longshanks]

The problem is that you have not described any sort of 'reality', just your own bizarre interpretation of what is a very straightforward collection of figures.

What you are describing is the Scottish economic situation with no geographical share of North Sea oil.

Yup.......What I am "describing is] the Scottish economic situation with no geographical share of North Sea oil" for the last five years (since SNP took power). An average annual, real, deficit of -£14 billion pa.

.....and that is the reality of the last five years is it not ?

Pray do tell me how much extra we received, in addition to the figures I quote, for geographical share of oil?

Don't bother...it was £zero.

So I quote quite truthfully the actual structural deficit figures for Scotland. You know. What actually happened. The reality. No "ah, but if........"

Its not that hard is it ?

[NickB]

The problem is that you have not described any sort of 'reality', just your own bizarre interpretation of what is a very straightforward collection of figures.

What you are describing is the Scottish economic situation with no geographical share of North Sea oil.

Yup.......What I am "describing is] the Scottish economic situation with no geographical share of North Sea oil" for the last five years (since SNP took power). An average annual, real, deficit of -£14 billion pa.

.....and that is the reality of the last five years is it not ?

Pray do tell me how much extra we received, in addition to the figures I quote, for geographical share of oil?

Don't bother...it was £zero.

So I quote quite truthfully the actual structural deficit figures for Scotland. You know. What actually happened. The reality. No "ah, but if........"

Its not that hard is it ?

You are, with all due respect, making no sense at all. There was no separate Scottish economy, so in your terms ALL of those figures were meaningless.

However, if we are going along with the premise of your figures that there is such a thing as the Scottish economy, then that is where the oil revenues accruing to the UK were derived.

I am surprised someone of your intelligence is having so much difficulty with this.

[longshanks]

The problem is that you have not described any sort of 'reality', just your own bizarre interpretation of what is a very straightforward collection of figures.

What you are describing is the Scottish economic situation with no geographical share of North Sea oil.

Yup.......What I am "describing is] the Scottish economic situation with no geographical share of North Sea oil" for the last five years (since SNP took power). An average annual, real, deficit of -£14 billion pa.

.....and that is the reality of the last five years is it not ?

Pray do tell me how much extra we received, in addition to the figures I quote, for geographical share of oil?

Don't bother...it was £zero.

So I quote quite truthfully the actual structural deficit figures for Scotland. You know. What actually happened. The reality. No "ah, but if........"

Its not that hard is it ?

You are, with all due respect, making no sense at all. There was no separate Scottish economy, so in your terms ALL of those figures were meaningless.

So, by your argument then, all the figures quoted by the SNP are meaningless.

Well done. At last !